linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/20] rust: add `alloc` crate

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: <CANiq72mxXY_4wXZPO5VCX76G168X0gynO=n=1xP2shVWBm+yeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:19:51 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>,
        Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Matthew Bakhtiari <dev@...k.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/20] rust: add `alloc` crate

Hi Greg,

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 2:42 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is a huge patch.  Why not break it into 2, one that adds what is
> upstream, and then the second adds the "stuff on top" that you need for
> the kernel.  Otherwise it's hard to know what is, and is not, upstream
> for us to be able to review from a kernel point of view.

That is a good idea, will do.

There are some files from upstream that we do not need, so they are
already deleted here (e.g. collections), thus what I will do is send
the first patch without those already and then another patch with the
modifications/additions we did. If you prefer to see the deleted files
in an intermediate step, I can also do that.

> I think you are trying to do this with the "kernel" keyword, but if so,
> why are you picking a "since" of 1.0?  None of that is described in the
> changelog :(

Exactly, I used the "kernel" string to have the additions clearly
marked. The `stable`/`unstable` attributes are required in the
standard library -- here the "1.0" is just a placeholder.

I will expand a bit on this in the split patches approach that you
suggest above.

Thanks for taking a look!

Cheers,
Miguel