linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: macros: update 'paste!' macro to accept string literals

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:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 15:14:37 -0400
From:   Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>,
        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>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: macros: update 'paste!' macro to accept string literals

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 6:49 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 5:04 AM Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Good point, thanks! I'll add that if there is a v2 (or Miguel can
> > probably add it if not)
>
> Yes, I add them myself when I notice they are missing (e.g. most
> recently 2 of the ones in `rust-fixes`), but patches should definitely
> come with the `Fixes: ` tag themselves, i.e. it should be the
> exceptional case.
>
> However, is this actually a fix? The title and commit message make it
> sound like it is a new feature rather than a fix. And the docs of the
> macro says literals are not supported, right?

I suppose it is something that augments current behavior and "fixes"
the linked use case by making it possible. I am not sure what
qualifies as a fix.

> So this probably needs to update those docs too (and ideally add an
> example with the newly supported construct too). Or am I
> misunderstanding?
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel

I will update the documentation, thanks for the catch.