linux-kernel - Re: Rust kernel policy

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: <CAPM=9txBg1m=qp9=nHJXS1h2XB8TSL1tj6CF=Z802u=YX7hBDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:35:13 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, 
	rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Rust kernel policy

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:20, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2025-02-18 at 13:22 -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > FWIW, usually Rust code has doc tests allowing you to run it with
> > kunit,
> > see:
> >
> >       https://docs.kernel.org/rust/testing.html
>
> I know this document and this was what I used to compile DMA patches.
> Then I ended up into "no test, no go" state :-)
>
> I put this is way. If that is enough, or perhaps combined with
> submitting-patches.rst, why this email thread exists?

There is users for the DMA stuff (now there should be some more
tests), the problem is posting the users involves all the precursor
patches for a bunch of other subsystems,

There's no nice way to get this all bootstrapped, two methods are:

a) posting complete series crossing subsystems, people get pissed off
and won't review because it's too much
b) posting series for review that don't have a full user in the
series, people get pissed off because of lack of users.

We are mostly moving forward with (b) initially, this gets rust folks
to give reviews and point out any badly thought out rust code, and
give others some ideas for what the code looks like and that it exists
so others don't reinvent the wheel.

Maybe we can add more rust tests to that particular patch series? but
this is the wrong thread to discuss it, so maybe ask on that thread
rather on this generic thread.

Dave.