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: <bd42821d-2761-42fa-b965-2681f1295ba0@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:06:36 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
 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 1/9/26 07:48, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>>>> +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.

Look good to me too!

I'll try to get a v5 out with this later toady.