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: <c84254c0164de551189a1f92ddec71f5dc222e42.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:37:50 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
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, 2025-02-19 at 16:35 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> 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.

Here's one way to do it:

1. Send the patch set as it is.
2. Point out to Git tree with branch containing the patches + patches
   for e.g. driver (hopefully for something that QEMU is able to emulate)
   and other stuff/shenanigans that allows to test them.

Then I can go and do git remote add etc. and compile a BuildRoot image
using my environment by setting LINUX_OVERRIDER_SRCIDR, test it and
call it a day.

> Dave.

[1] https://codeberg.org/jarkko/linux-tpmdd-test

BR, Jarkko