linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Rust null block driver

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: <ZFP+8apHunCCMmOZ@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 12:52:33 -0600
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gost.dev@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Rust null block driver

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:36:01AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 5/4/23 11:15, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> > If it is still unclear to you why this effort was started, please do let
> > me know and I shall try to clarify further :)
> 
> It seems like I was too polite in my previous email. What I meant is that
> rewriting code is useful if it provides a clear advantage to the users of
> a driver. For null_blk, the users are kernel developers. The code that has
> been posted is the start of a rewrite of the null_blk driver. The benefits
> of this rewrite (making low-level memory errors less likely) do not outweigh
> the risks that this effort will introduce functional or performance regressions.

Instead of replacing, would co-existing be okay? Of course as long as
there's no requirement to maintain feature parity between the two.
Actually, just call it "rust_blk" and declare it has no relationship to
null_blk, despite their functional similarities: it's a developer
reference implementation for a rust block driver.