linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] 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:   Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:31:42 +0100
From:   Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     ojeda@...nel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 09:09:53PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> By the way, I don't think that Rust necessarily has to conform to the
> current way that Linux works.  If this prompted us to track the current
> context (inside spinlock, handling interrupt, performing writeback, etc)
> and do away with (some) GFP flags, that's not the end of the world.
> We're already moving in that direction to a certain extent with the
> scoped memory allocation APIs to replace GFP_NOFS / GFP_NOIO.

I hadn't myself considered this option but it looks enticing to me. Do you have
a sense of which GFP flags we wouldn't be able to obviate even if we did track
state?