linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 20/27] scripts: add `rust_is

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:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 22:40:38 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>,
        Finn Behrens <me@...enk.de>, Miguel Cano <macanroj@...il.com>,
        Tiago Lam <tiagolam@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 20/27] scripts: add `rust_is_available.sh`

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:18 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> I think the min-tool-version.sh changes from patch 23 should be moved
> into this patch.

Yeah, it calls into that script with a "rustc" argument, which doesn't
work if somebody happened to run it by hand, so this makes sense.

However, the intention was to move each "big" new file into their own
patch to make a smaller Kbuild one (and only do that "new file"
additions in each patch), and then finally do all the modifications
and enable the Rust support in the Kbuild patch (which has the callers
into this script). Also the script is not intended to be called
directly anyway (since you need the Make environment, but you
definitely can), there is a Make target to help with that.

Hopefully that explains the logic behind the arrangement of the
patches, which was to make the patches as simple as possible. I am
happy to rearrange if you think it is more understandable that way.

Cheers,
Miguel