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: <CANiq72n2WTAp28PeNVw1hOsxw5Bo1HMxtpTb7N-f7z_aGMppBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:43:32 +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

On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 5:39 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by different sets of crates here.
> What `cfg`s would you want to pass?

What I mean is that, in principle, `cfg`s can be different for the
kernel crates vs. the host crates. For instance, we use
`cfg(no_fp_fmt_parse)` for the kernel's `core`. In practice, it may
not matter. But, in theory, we should be passing different sets.

> We could, but then it's redundant with the deps section. I'll leave it
> explicit for now, since it is just one line.

I am not sure what you mean.

Cheers,
Miguel