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: <CAJ-ks9kBuw=sEFWDZPMKiPD_hU=NPtseXBLyPeSrR6eEtJE4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 12:08:58 -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>, 
	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 12:05 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 5:49 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I see! I'm happy to do that in this patch if you think it's worth it.
>
> I don't know if it is worth it (it requires testing it, I guess) -- we
> can go simple until we see we need it, especially for a fix.
>
> > The python function `append_crate` takes both `deps` and
> > `is_proc_macro`, so implying dependencies based on the value of
> > `is_proc_macro` could create duplication.
>
> Yes, but the dependencies for proc macros are a completely different
> set -- that is what I was discussing above. And those dependencies
> will be shared across all proc macros, when/if we have several
> eventually (e.g. per subsystem).
>
> That is why, since we already have `is_proc_macro`, I think we should
> just use that. It may make sense to split `append_crate` into two
> functions or similar, e.g. having a `append_proc_macro_crate` (that
> perhaps does not require any dependencies) -- it would be the same
> idea but cleaner.
>
> Anyway, the simpler the change, the better, especially for a fix. But
> please take it into consideration.
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel

Heh, I keep typing a reply and you keep beating me to it. TL;DR I came
to the same conclusion: we should keep the fix simple and refactor on
-next.

I'll send v2 shortly.

The detailed reason why splitting host and target crates requires
refactoring is that we currently we use `display_name` as a crate's
unique identifier (i.e. both as a way of naming it as another crate's
dependency, and as its name in the dependent crate). If we wanted to
have separate target and host `core` crates we'd need a slightly more
sophisticated way of describing dependencies. I'll work on this in a
separate series.