linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts: generate_rust_analyzer.py: add missing macros -> core dep

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: <CANiq72mw83RmLYeFFoJW6mUUygoyiA_f1ievSC2pmBESsQew+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:29:18 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...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>, 
	Boris-Chengbiao Zhou <bobo1239@....de>, Fiona Behrens <me@...enk.dev>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chayim Refael Friedman <chayimfr@...il.com>, 
	Lukas Wirth <lukas.wirth@...rous-systems.com>, 
	Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: generate_rust_analyzer.py: add missing macros ->
 core dep

Hi Tamir,

Thanks for looking into rust-analyzer, it is great to get improvements
in this area.

On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:29 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The macros crate has depended on core since its introduction in commit

To be clear, `macros` does not depend on the (kernel) `core`. But it
depends on host crates: not just `core`, but `proc_macro`, `std` etc.,
which is why we can use things like e.g. `std::fmt::Write`, right? I
don't know if the distinction matters for rust-analyzer, though, but
things like their `cfg`s may differ.

I also wonder if we should also be passing `std` etc. given it seems
we need to pass `core`. Does it handle correctly that `Write`, for
instance? Perhaps rust-analyzer allows to pass different sets of
crates for this, even if they share the same display name -- then we
could pass the right `cfg`s and so on.

Cc'ing Lukas and Danilo who have been looking into rust-analyzer
support recently (Fiona is already there).

One more quick comment: since this would apply to all proc macros,
should we do it for all proc macros? i.e. instead of hardcoding it
here, using instead the `is_proc_macro` tag we already have.

Cheers,
Miguel