linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] RISC-V: enable rust

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: <CANiq72mVKCOAuK4Qe+8AHmpkFwyJsVfx8AqB7ccGi3DYpSSWcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 19:23:17 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.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>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, 
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] RISC-V: enable rust

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:31 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 6.6 came and went, and I have been busy dealing with the other
> responsibilities I mentioned and have not had a chance to look here.
> I rebased this today and things still work as they did when I submitted
> this version, but things have gotten muddier on the LLVM side of things,
> as more recent versions have added yet more extension support.

Sounds fun :)

> My inclination at this point is to engage in a bit of LARPing as an
> ostrich, and sorta ignore these concerns initially. Specifically, I'd
> like to drop the idea of having the gcc support, and restrict to LLVM=1.

Yeah, if `LLVM=1` works, then I would suggest going ahead with that.

(Now that `rustc_codegen_gcc` is here, we will move to that and forget
about mixed compiler builds, but we still have to handle `bindgen`
flags until we have an alternative for that)

> When it comes to asymmetrical extension support between the C and Rust
> toolchains, I'm think we deal with that as we do for the C toolchains,
> sort issues out as-and-when they arrive rather than punt this again.

Sounds good, thanks a lot!

Cheers,
Miguel