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: <CANiq72kBo4x7D92Xe7Wkvu=Jj+YmMH+-ARiovG+SHt9BYECbvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 19:30:10 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 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>, 
	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 5:41 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The upstream changes to dropck predate the PR I linked up-thread which
> landed in 2017. Since this Arc code was written in 2022, it never had
> any effect. Isn't it proper to keep the "Fixes" tag?

If there is a bug, definitely yes, but I don't think that applies is
-- this is more of a cleanup, no?

Sometimes things are marked as "fixes" that are perhaps a stretch
(e.g. a typo in a comment). It depends a bit on the maintainer and how
we define "bug" (e.g. does it count in docs, or just actual end
users). But here it just seems something is superfluous, at worst, and
it does not need to be backported either. Even if we kept the tag for
some reason, I think this belongs in `rust-next`.

But if I am missing something, and this does indeed fix something that
we should prioritize, please let me know!

What looks more important, to me, is to clarify/document why (or why
not) we have it, regardless of whether we keep it or not, i.e. having
thought about it, I think it wouldn't hurt having a line/comment even
if we remove it.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel