linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3ef67380-bc8c-42c6-a5f8-416440e4c445@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:48:49 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        NeilBrown <neilb@...mail.net>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for
 tool-generated content

On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:39:24AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:25:57 +0000
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't really read that as grumpy, I understand wanting to be agreeable
> > > > but sometimes it's appropriate to be emphatic, which is the entire purpose
> > > > of this amendment.
> > > >
> > > > Taking into account Jens's input too:
> > > >
> > > > +If tools permit you to generate series automatically, expect
> > > > +additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
> > > > +
> > > > +As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe incorrect or
> > > > +inappropriate, so you are expected to understand and to be able to defend
> > > > +everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then don't submit the
> > > > +resulting changes.
> > > > +
> > > > +If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series without
> > > > +detailed review.
>
> I like it.

Hmm, you like my version but then below argue against every point I make in
favour of it? I'm confused?

Did you mean to say you liked a suggested other revision or... really this
one? :)

If so and Dave likes it too then LGTM, pending any Linus/other veto.

For the rest of your email - a lawyer would say 'asked and answered'. I've
responded to every point of yours there about 3 times apiece across the
thread and I don't think it's a good use of time to loop around on things!

Cheers, Lorenzo