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: <db09c80285c412725a1857588d2a38f987a28996.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:40:25 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 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 14:25 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 12:39, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> You mean the series from b) above, right?
> (To be repeated for each subsystem for which you have such a series).

Ya.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Exactly.

OK, great. As long as I have some reasonable means to put it live,
I'm totally fine. 

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 

BR, Jarkko