From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com (sendmail.purelymail.com [34.202.193.197]) (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 1C8AB346E43 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 03:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783394447; cv=none; b=Acz3FXbdt1yfEz9dM7xE1PmqDQc1dn7BkKnmeRLy5n7iGdWcDYnuB7Jyt1n701Hx5x2nPpDjL/wVKvEMBNiRsGOutnQpdrQGBuZ5Q9Igy7Q7pDi4WxlDR7kDsyr6W/n05opW6TDoWJorJ1T1VSXA9oMQEE+WW+FXH9lt1oYapYE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783394447; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dQV/CiU/iqAz99nUMSlO2Rjk3UDc96lFE+tP58d/mbM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UUWw9DzKxVui0G+uy48VMu46dj6IMk6OieWvU7TvsaFrVhs6y5C8Eij2a7n6ziPSvvgSCos7Vf/RU6RlhEVonbw0D6KrWNkDqpT76VkZfzT7QpTOHPky2Arv9ZbYGakBDJNTQScEPHYd5RP/o/8b89sx+yrkK1kKWv72e6P+Kh8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=nhoward.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nhoward.dev; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nhoward.dev header.i=@nhoward.dev header.b=v3EGpege; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b=hz6HQmJl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=nhoward.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nhoward.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nhoward.dev header.i=@nhoward.dev header.b="v3EGpege"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b="hz6HQmJl" DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=v3EGpegeBYyTx2MZ2j+4meSc14Q1y2Vr5xF5bnNhC9ruC7NzLVy6lxdeofAK+9qXX2nRQ7vYtvuqPWccRMx5AXD5KLA15N9b3AnkDLRQET5yLG+E0129c2J5iMPM08XU5uVorAVjvgczhx4pWV0NTba8rtucQfw8f1HUOKM79kTR0TFcLeTRQ74A2RLQqpTyvTaBdeWQo1B+kUyKWTqTjxp1L7QJzvPVEOsTVaM1Qufp8+806DKMvnCJFyxAzSvKxxUHjgGnC/6xL3rtXytegoSQ3bBtWmGODgrRx8aFjP3Bohp4W2YnD+9d1LMfAPZb8po3BtOLnnD8javjNNGV+Q==; s=purelymail3; d=nhoward.dev; v=1; bh=dQV/CiU/iqAz99nUMSlO2Rjk3UDc96lFE+tP58d/mbM=; h=Received:Date:From:To:Subject; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=hz6HQmJlQz7UQNgnl5W4nUpl24+nQIPXmZG5G1/pQlb7y1R+iDfh+E2t5tZ81Gb3hxcNcOjejpKxvkZAehLxMmOsK3EsfONsmkRK/22otUgxpTWdUz7MOyxeiaCCBGoPHdjzj5kqY8OB+82y1ivb+G79y9nNdYD4irZODYH+/o6ttNS+QGXPWJi1bcPWJZ2W6VGZ13WVCDGAHSJRQwJP0lgGEMs9k7kDcUHTJhUTTdUC2mFlo1Z00bV7RyDQfvycWnswKOkp18q9yq3Wy+ctyRlMmBYdM6DPQsgsIEiow0nFmqTDhDWvX8YrF7Ah0w44etGG07ep2xvKhsej2HPLMw==; s=purelymail3; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=dQV/CiU/iqAz99nUMSlO2Rjk3UDc96lFE+tP58d/mbM=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Date:From:To:Subject; Feedback-ID: 823466:39853:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 1306190242; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Tue, 07 Jul 2026 03:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 23:20:26 -0400 From: Nathan Howard To: Johannes Berg Cc: Yingjie Cao , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: only accept IBSS channel switch from our own BSSID Message-ID: References: <20260623090437.13198-1-yingjcao@sigvoid.com> <9201d828365fa2b11fb6a83d1ff66365435a9072.camel@sipsolutions.net> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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.