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: <0f578658c26406326bcca3e3d3f1cf45fc969c17.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:32:37 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: 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>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Rust kernel policy

On Tue, 2025-02-18 at 23:05 -0800, Boqun Feng wrote: 
> In my opinion, about testing, code style check, commit log, etc. Rust
> patches should be the same as C patches, at least during my reviews,
> I
> treat both the same. Therefore I wasn't clear about why you want
> additional information about Rust patch only, or what you exactly
> proposed to add into kernel documentation for Rust patch.
> 
> The policy documentation in this email clarifies some higher level
> stuffs than patch submission and development, such as "How is Rust
> introduced in a subsystem", this is for developers' information maybe
> even before development work. And I agree with Miguel, if we want
> this
> information in-tree, we can certainly do that.
> 
> Hope this can answer your question?

Hey, it definitely does for the moment, thank you.

I'm just poking ice with a stick, and not even touching ground yet,
given that I was only able to test compilation ;-)

BR, Jarkko