Re: [PATCH] docs: translations: pt_BR: threat_model.rst

[Daniel Pereira]

Em ter., 15 de set. de 2026 às 23:26, vinihsr
<vinicius.m1821@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> Translate genetated-content.rst into Brazilian Portuguese,
> maintaining consistency with original formatting rules.
> And add it to the pt_BR process documentation index.

 Sorry, I'm a bit confused here: the patch itself adds
  Documentation/translations/pt_BR/process/threat-model.rst, but the
  commit message describes generated-content.rst, which is a different
  document. Did the wrong description end up in this commit?

> Assisted-by: Gemini:Gemini 3.1 Pro

Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst (line 48) asks for the
literal word "LLM" here rather than the model name, in the form
"Assisted-by: LLM [TOOL1] [TOOL2]", where the optional fields are
analysis tools like coccinelle or sparse, so in your case it would
simply be "Assisted-by: LLM".

> +(:doc:`relacionados à segurança <security-bugs>` vs :doc:`não relacionados à
> +segurança <../admin-guide/reporting-issues>`), e podem complicar a aplicação

The second :doc: path does not resolve: it is relative to the document's
directory, so it points at pt_BR/admin-guide/reporting-issues, which
does not exist — the pt_BR tree only has process/. As that document is
not translated, it has to reach the documentation root, the way
pt_BR/process/security-bugs.rst does on line 362:

  :doc:`não relacionados à segurança <../../../admin-guide/reporting-issues>`

The first reference is fine as it is, and it resolves to the pt_BR
translation of security-bugs.

> +  * atividade do processo (o ptrace não é permitido a outros usuários)
> +  * comunicação entre processos (outros usuários não podem observar os dados
> +    trocados por meio de soquetes de domínio UNIX ou outros mecanismos de IPC).

I would suggest keeping "unix domain sockets" in English here, as
botching-up-ioctls.rst (line 206) already does. This is the only
occurrence of "soquete" in the pt_BR tree.


> +O que não constitui um bug de segurança
> +---------------------------------------

The original says "vulnerabilities" here, and the document builds on
that distinction: it contrasts a vulnerability with a regular bug, which
you render as "bug comum". "Bug de segurança" also shows up on lines
112, 122 and 252, while lines 106 and 207 already use
"vulnerabilidade", and the English never says "security bug" anywhere.

I would suggest using "vulnerabilidade" in all of them:

  Quais classes de problemas não são consideradas vulnerabilidades
  ----------------------------------------------------------------

> +  * problemas que afetam drivers expostos sob CONFIG_STAGING, bem como recursos

[...]

> +  * carregamento de módulos explicitamente inseguros/quebrados/em fase de teste

Both bullets refer to drivers/staging, and the original uses "staging"
in both, but here it is kept in the first one and translated as "em fase
de teste" in the second, so the link between them is lost. 2.Process.rst
keeps "staging" in Portuguese too (lines 337 and 344), so I would
suggest:

  * carregamento de módulos explicitamente inseguros/quebrados/staging

> +  * qualquer ação realizada pelo usuário root no namespace inicial (por exemplo,
> +    erro fatal do kernel - oops - ao gravar em um dispositivo privilegiado).

The original just says "kernel oops", and "erro fatal" is not accurate:
an oops is not fatal by default. panic_on_oops defaults to 0, "Try to
continue operation", and this file already renders "panic" as "pânico"
on line 74. I would suggest keeping the term untranslated, the way
changes.rst does:

    um oops do kernel ao gravar em um dispositivo privilegiado).

> +* **Imagens de sistema de arquivos criadas propositalmente**:
> +
> +  * bugs desencadeados pela montagem de uma imagem de sistema de arquivos

This section was restructured rather than translated:

- the heading is "Non-conforming devices and media" in the original,
  which also covers devices and storage media, not only images;
- the introductory paragraph is missing. It carries the rationale for
  the whole section ("Drivers are implemented against a specification...
  the resulting misbehaviour is a regular bug to be fixed, not a
  vulnerability");
- the second bullet ("bugs whose reproduction requires hardware
  modification or emulation...") was moved into the previous section,
  "Fora do uso em produção", on line 193, and lost "or devices reporting
  values outside their documented ranges";
- "mounting a block device is a privileged operation (see above), and
  the administrator is responsible for the media they mount" is gone
  too.

Documentation/translations/index.rst (line 42) says a translation is not
a fork, and that any content addition, removal or update must be applied
to the English documents first. Could you keep this section with the
same structure and content as the original?