Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: only accept IBSS channel switch from our own BSSID

[Nathan Howard <kernel@nhoward.dev>]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 10:53:33AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-06-23 at 15:31 -0400, Nathan Howard wrote:
> > 
> > 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 last 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 defend
> > his work (I'd rather not share credit with a machine when my work is my own)?
> > 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 assisted-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.

This sounds reasonable.

> 
> 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.

As does this.  Thank you for the guidance.