linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: arc: remove unused PhantomData

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: <CANiq72k3AJgMq_US7MYGpzKRqOXZQKpOkBXAd8DwBKyE+Bz3Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 19:19:48 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: arc: remove unused PhantomData

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 5:33 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I would be happy to add the relevant details to the commit message but
> this is one citation that I haven't been able to locate. The closest
> mention I could find[0] only vaguely mentions that this change was
> made, but does not reference a commit (and certainly not an RFC).

In Boqun's first link, there is a reference to the nomicon with
details, and the section:

    https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/phantom-data.html#generic-parameters-and-drop-checking

explains the change, including:

    "But ever since RFC 1238, this is no longer true nor necessary."

There was another RFC (1327) after that, for a finer-grained approach
(`may_dangle`). The name of the feature gate was also changed.

Anyway, I don't think we need to add any of that to the commit message
though. Perhaps linking the latest RFC is good for context, so if you
think it is a good idea, of course please go for it -- but in case you
are referring to what I said, I didn't say that we should add the RFC
bits into the commit message.

Cheers,
Miguel