linux-kernel - Re: Linux kernel in-tree Rust support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:54:11 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        alex.gaynor@...il.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        geofft@...reload.com, jbaublitz@...hat.com,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel in-tree Rust support

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:59 PM Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
>
> As I recall, Greg's biggest condition for initial introduction of this
> was to do the same kind of "turn this Kconfig option on and turn an
> option under it off" trick that LTO uses, so that neither "make
> allnoconfig" nor "make allyesconfig" would require Rust until we've had
> plenty of time to experiment with it.

No, please make it a "is rust available" automatic config option. The
exact same way we already do the compiler versions and check for
various availability of compiler flags at config time.

See init/Kconfig for things like

  config LD_IS_LLD
          def_bool $(success,$(LD) -v | head -n 1 | grep -q LLD)

and the rust support should be similar. Something like

  config RUST_IS_AVAILABLE
          def_bool $(success,$(RUST) ..sometest..)

because I _don't_ want us to be in the situation where any new rust
support isn't even build-tested by default.

Quite the reverse. I'd want the first rust driver (or whatever) to be
introduced in such a simple format that failures will be obvious and
simple.

The _worst_ situation to be in is that s (small) group of people start
testing their very special situation, and do bad and crazy things
because "nobody else cares, it's hidden".

No, thank you.

             Linus