linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init/Kconfig: Only block on RANDSTRUCT for 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: <CANiq72mibFYOpQY4RxuJf1DQAdqnAsuLW2-24MnY=JpdSoXd5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:29:29 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>
Cc: rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, asahi@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>, Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>, Asahi Lina <lina@...hilina.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/Kconfig: Only block on RANDSTRUCT for RUST

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 12:18 PM Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev> wrote:
>
> When I originally wrote this patch two years ago to get things
> working, Fedora used all the GCC plugins, so I was trying to get GCC +
> Rust to work while minimizing the delta on build differences. This was
> the combination that worked. We've been carrying this patch in the
> Asahi tree for a year now. And while Fedora does not currently have

Just for clarity, when you say "carrying the patch for a year", does
that mean Asahi used it with the other GCC plugins enabled?

> GCC plugins enabled because it caused issues with some third-party
> modules (I think it was the NVIDIA driver, but I'm not sure), it was
> around long enough for me to know with some confidence that it was
> fine this way.

Same here: I am reading this as "yes, in Fedora we tested it for a
while with the other GCC plugins enabled, although not recently".

If so, that is great to know and we can relax things here.

> This was mostly because I wanted it to be clearer. The negation didn't
> exactly read to me the same way, but that hunk can be dropped if you want.

I see, that is what I suspected, but I wanted to be sure I was not
missing something.

I am ambivalent on what reads best, to be honest, so I think I prefer
to avoid the change if it is unneeded.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel