linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rust: macros: improve panic messages

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: <CAJ-ks9=g9-bKoyh0++4f7CVQYth3Rb20FAd1-cgwXy8dYj27Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 14:01:35 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
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>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rust: macros: improve panic messages

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:12 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 6:22 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Include unexpected input on parsing failures.  This has the side effect
> > of avoiding a spurious rust-analyzer warning:
> >
> >   Variable `None` should have snake_case name, e.g. `none`
>
> Hmm... That should be solved independently, but sure.
>
> In any case, how is this related to the second patch in the series?
> i.e. do you need both to solve the macOS issue?

No, it's not required - you're right to point that out. I'll send it
separately. Is it very inconvenient to consider the other patch on its
own?

> > +        let Some(token) = it.next() else {
> > +            break;
> > +        };
> > +        match token {
> > +            TokenTree::Punct(punct) => assert_eq!(punct.as_char(), ','),
> > +            token => panic!("Expected ',' or end of array, got {}", token),
>
> Do we want to shadow here?

I personally like this style because the shadow and shadowed are the
same variable and the presence of a binding in the match expression
hints to the reader that it's used somewhere in the body of the match
arm. Do you have another preference?

> Also, I think you could write `{token}`. Same above.

Good call. Will make it so.

> Could you please show how the new output would look like in the commit message?

Yes, I will include before and after output.

> Cheers,
> Miguel