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: <CANiq72=yOkv_GK=V5k-WTYE-Fv++K+OtVUdrLQcH+75qRMN-Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 17:30:17 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, 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>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	NeilBrown <neilb@...mail.net>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, workflows@...r.kernel.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 8:28 PM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> 'You _can_ be more transparent by adding information like this:...'

I am not a native speaker, but my reading of that "can" was that it is
suggesting ways to be more transparent that may or may not apply in
particular cases, but the requirement of being transparent was already
established by the previous sentence:

    Second, when making a contribution, be transparent about
    the origin of content in cover letters and changelogs.

Which is reinforced by another imperative in the bullet point about prompts:

    If code was largely generated from a single or short set of
    prompts, include those prompts.

Similarly, I read those other "might"s you quote like a set of things
that could happen or not (and is not exhaustive) in particular cases
and/or depending on the maintainer etc.

At least that is my reading, and as far as I understood the TAB
discussions, the goal of this patch was to document that non-trivial
tool usage needs to be disclosed, including LLM use, and to me the
patch already did that, but perhaps the wording can be more direct.

I hope that clarifies a bit...

Cheers,
Miguel