From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EBD1370D5A; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 13:49:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791813000; cv=none; b=BANveWOEd2CEV7hM8dSmDhcySDFms32+iCWU9b/woD6dJpsVWmG0BRitwOJ8WIppgVVGPU5TYUYlpUB7XepWRbwn6+4HeKUgZClEzbgp3KRRO55hT6xIGM/GArZvUoSjAISz6oQIBvqnRd2OXlIlb5yaADpZIEkuS20K3EP5QSw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791813000; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RFcIX5peStErBly0sFFn3aIlJaLW8v0mCsRn7sFgk10=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jDv9MmuKHkIY0uOi2u3Y8xqjj1qsfJMkWXZoP0Xl5FaSxIC7RCiuZAZ9sMvaJfbXUxFTgxwmf1ZtPdydUvK3MdKkguIg2gLd04tSkTrqWtuNkSYzy8HIxYldArgpx8dxBHkFypw+A1P19ixpPgNO171/uCH4D9eqQ52FANYAIyA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KKUzG/N9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="KKUzG/N9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 4CEAD1F0089B; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 13:49:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791812998; bh=fe4b6etIVvIjJ0jQOl+WKS/vENhQduM0qU8NRC28uXs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=KKUzG/N9udh0tSPvprD9wuMlqZyPxooVcjAeFL97IykL5GfLS7pYLS0NOycARTiM1 gKjLKiLfPWkHxM0/htue5gxhtjzG0QCORK6EFGBlyTHR0jcqeVuTkVG70OTsNy+Zw1 zhUke+JhRzYl57wprlSWcLp2Z8QnHy775eFwU5tEG5NLB4vk7icZA02Byqm2VHX5Sq 2XQVKX376MzGhOw42lZhcFPpbXOWStXBn3kOSpuJpp9QlMqOVigurQBSUlNQc7vwl6 RAjHSwINTWoNkODEtQgsQukU1oIA3DGSuq5IjTvk31tHOHsqh87M40NaYLpTQ9SavC neeF5O9+s/l5w== Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 16:49:55 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Cen Zhang Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, paul@paul-moore.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, akpm@osdl.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, baijiaju1990@gmail.com, jjzuming@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] KEYS: Protect user key quota access during instantiation Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 09:30:43PM +0800, Cen Zhang wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > Thanks very much for the detailed feedback and for your patience with this :). > > Jarkko Sakkinen 于2026年10月12日周一 21:03写道： > > > > > > I appreciate the fix but if I'm completely hones the commit message > > looks like direct LLM output, which is not acceptable. > > > > It needs to be proof-readed and edited. For this reason, I want a better > > iteration before I apply this. > > > > Br, Jarkko > > Thanks very much for the detailed feedback and for your patience with this. > > Several people have mentioned that my commit messages look like they were > generated by an LLM — and to be honest, I did write them with LLM assistance. > However, they often gave me the feeling of being questioned rather > than explained. > I spend most of my time looking for bugs, following my interest, so > I’m more familiar > with bug patterns than with the deeper details of the subsystem. That > means I can > make mistakes. I’m willing to listen to feedback and keep revising the > patch until it’s in > good shape, but the pressure sometimes makes me afraid to continue the > conversation, > worried about making more mistakes. Your patient explanation this time > really means a > lot to me. > > Of course, I also fully understand that busy developers feel > uncomfortable when seeing > unclear or poorly written messages. I just wanted to express my thanks > for taking the time > to gently and patiently explain things clearly. > > I’ll carefully rework the commit message following your suggestions to > make the concurrency > scenario and the reasoning clearer, and send a new patch once it’s > ready. I’d appreciate it if > you could take another look then. While AI assistance is allowed, if this happens as a pattern, it is misuse and eager way to credit without due. I.e., you've done 50% of the work but ignored the human part. I.e., you also must understand without AI assistance what the patch does. If you do, it should not a problem to write a commit message tht simply describes what it does. To summarize: 1. Actual mistakes are fine and then patch just needs to be iterated. 2. Skipping work is not mistake and it is not cool. Hope this clears things up. > > Best regards, > Cen Zhang Br, Jarkko