linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] rust: add parameter support to the `module!` macro

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025010957-danger-squeak-46e7@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 18:17:14 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
	Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@...il.com>,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>,
	Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] rust: add parameter support to the `module!` macro

On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 02:03:39PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 11:54:59AM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> >> This patch includes changes required for Rust kernel modules to utilize
> >> module parameters. This code implements read only support for integer
> >> types without `sysfs` support.
> >
> > I know you want to keep this simple for now, but will you have to go and
> > touch all users of this when you do add the sysfs support later?  sysfs
> > wants the mode of the file to be set here, so how do you think of that
> > happening?
> 
> We would add the required fields to the `module!` macro as optional
> fields. No need to touch everyone. Leaving out the sysfs file permission
> field would cause the parameter to not show up in sysfs.

Ok, that sounds reasonable, thanks!

greg k-h