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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEg-Je85yStrR4tQ4Dqih=fguT7-zO_9ZpY1RCTEzwHPnjDDxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 08:51:53 -0400
From: Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
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 6:29 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Yes. When Fedora had it on, so did we.

> > 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.
>

Yup, that is exactly the case.

> > 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.
>

I'll send a v2 then.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!