linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/13] Kbuild: 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]

Message-ID: <CANiq72=TDkRzZi7fN5y9QmtRbvoZTzxHXDg_ELjdD+YhmXzgPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:23:26 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@...reload.com>,
        Finn Behrens <me@...enk.de>,
        Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] Kbuild: Rust support

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:03 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Until then, I don't see why we need to permit developers to express
> such flexibility for just the Rust code, or have it differ from the
> intent of the C code. Does it make sense to set RUST_OPT_LEVEL_3 and
> CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE? I doubt it. That doesn't seem like a development
> feature, but a mistake.  YAGNI.  Instead developers should clarify
> what they care about in terms of high level intent; if someone wants
> to micromanage optimization level flags in their forks they don't need
> a Kconfig to do it (they're either going to hack KBUILD_CFLAGS,
> CFLAGS_*.o, or KCFLAGS), and there's probably better mechanisms for
> fine-tooth precision of optimizing actually hot code or not via PGO
> and AutoFDO.

I completely agree when we are talking about higher level optimization
levels. From a user perspective, it does not make much sense to want
slightly different optimizations levels or different size/performance
trade-offs between C and Rust. However, I am thinking from the
debugging side, i.e. mostly low or no optimization; rather than about
micromanaging optimizations for performance.

For instance, last year I used `RUST_OPT_LEVEL_0/1` to quickly rule
out optimizer/codegen/etc. bugs on the Rust side when we had some
memory corruption over Rust data
(https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/pull/28), which is important
when dealing with compiler nightly versions. It was also nice to be
able to easily follow along when stepping, too.

Having said that, I agree that in those cases one can simply tweak the
flags manually -- so that's why I said it is fine dropping the the
`Kconfig` options. There might be some advantages of having them, such
as making developers aware that those builds should work, to keep them
tested/working, etc.; but we can do that manually too in the CI/docs
too.

Cheers,
Miguel