From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 6BF254218A0; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 08:53:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783328032; cv=none; b=qaIJrST3MuhTi5+9+/sP6NmxwHxYeJ/7kW7rRSEUnbhJdXsyzBTkjCWbN3wJNMrmmFi6WAo0THMabzlbxbRLDVbQUQf0Pq0kiGM8v3C3MXGgc9y9ijfCTHXvBjtxOPlrUI3BrHlC0/f5JAjVrx0EDRFvC36pP/7Ws7hls0+pkx8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783328032; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/TvKec/XC0JTbdAOQu/yIL/e78/xfDt000sU/A6eGUI=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=QV6RTO9vWW4r+CPQB13jY/kKo3Ba/fQ4dmkPVwejLK92yHR4Sbvc1DvIlio4EKfalHhhSJw3bKuM3t3F2AG0AueM1egYYyuoB1RXLT4xqhyRWYokmcR9eaKHaHcHT6PhUWX3EnGvM79M+GinIPyuZIBRH0rYmRD2p/lpB6v6Qas= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=Q9Pnm0mP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="Q9Pnm0mP" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=HOYq0y24CEIaSGuKk/5JaHh7YaHxGnPSgB515RKcgqg=; t=1783328021; x=1784537621; b=Q9Pnm0mPqrCkbHXOVNM/VoewIEYXqdYKG7M48uIPmWeQPdl MGE15PdsF6k3MP/BzJIlBqTqPikPWU15UuK2BROrCwddRnqwG0abOnuBO/DRLUAed5W9UeUwop2LK +88ZXtXHKUT2t6QAXgDo8J0V5RdCvSrCeB7TFkSc+8A5jeXMUd9a9mFXLPTUZq0BWyWVIW9ewuWTM SZu6IOHM0vpRx0YPHKlLkKJDZ+Ty0r/VdlyUJKE0fRv5XjS6bwyYKT/HingLCnhJodPuAUql4XNGh hGvO0bXHXM2eZa2dSM7qE49dMYgSK3toFDNenaaRyQSZ5M+AtpH8jxlMZzo7Mf2Q==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wgf53-0000000CgRq-438V; Mon, 06 Jul 2026 10:53:34 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: only accept IBSS channel switch from our own BSSID From: Johannes Berg To: Nathan Howard Cc: Yingjie Cao , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 10:53:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20260623090437.13198-1-yingjcao@sigvoid.com> <9201d828365fa2b11fb6a83d1ff66365435a9072.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2026-06-23 at 15:31 -0400, Nathan Howard wrote: >=20 > So, what's the litmus test? I don't know, tbh. > I've been watching this list for some time > now. I've seen (what appears) to be an ushering of distrust brought > on by llm's. This also seems to have come into prominence within the las= t 6 or > so months. I understand the cautious approach, but what if one's been > working diligently (and quietly), and has spent many hours studying and > preparing a driver series (for oneself and submission to the kernel)? > I've always done well by doing my homework the hard way. But now, > submissions are met with skepticism... that the work must have been > assisted-by if the person doesn't have a track record. How should one de= fend > his work (I'd rather not share credit with a machine when my work is my o= wn)? > To be clear, my question is sourcing from what I've seen to be trending > more recently whereby several submissions have been ?softly? tagged as as= sisted-by. > Maybe they were, but my point still stands. Kindly provide guidance. I'm convinced that if you've actually done the legwork you could defend the work you've done. If you're willing to go on the record saying you _didn't_ use an LLM I'm even going to believe it. But if someone's sending "critical security fix that needs security@ involvement" across a wide spectrum of places then yes, I'm going to be highly sceptical they actually know what they're doing on any individual one of the issues. Like here. OK, this one didn't go to security@, and it's not even a wrong fix, but doing "Cc stable", Cc'ing half the world and not following up *at all* are all bad signs. johannes