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: <20250221105959.071b9504@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:59:59 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig
 <hch@...radead.org>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
 rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:22 +0100
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:

> However, I also want to clarify that I think that maintainers *do* have a veto
> when it comes to how the API they maintain is used in the kernel. For instance,
> when an API is abused for things it has not been designed for, which may hurt
> the kernel as a whole.

I believe that the maintainer should have the right to define what the API
is. And as long as users follow the use cases of the API, it should be
perfectly fine.

This isn't a user space API, where Linus has basically said if you expose
something to user space and user space starts using it in a way you didn't
expect, that's your problem.

But I hope that doesn't go with the kernel. To make things faster, I do
expose internals of the tracing in the header files. If someone starts
using those internals for things that they were not made for, I hope I have
the right as a maintainer to tell them they can't do that.

-- Steve