linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/13] rust: hrtimer: introduce hrtimer support

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: <CANiq72=qayfPk+W4BRiXe9xBGcgP2zPf-Q3K6GXTg8MKy-Kg=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:45:03 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, 
	Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Guangbo Cui <2407018371@...com>, 
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>, Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, 
	Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/13] rust: hrtimer: introduce hrtimer support

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 5:31 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 05:23:59PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >
> > side -- Andreas and I discussed it the other day. The description of
> > the issue has some lines, but perhaps the commit message could
>
> Do you have a link to the issue?

Sorry, I meant "description of the symbol", i.e. the description field
in the patch.

> I asked because hrtimer API is always available regardless of the
> configuration, and it's such a core API, so it should always be there
> (Rust or C).

It may not make sense for something that is always built on the C
side, yeah. I think the intention here may be that one can easily
disable it while "developing" a change on the C side. I am not sure
what "developing" means here, though, and we need to be careful --
after all, Kconfig options are visible to users and they do not care
about that.

If it is just for local development, then I would expect the
maintainers to simply disable Rust entirely. I guess that may be
harder in the medium/long-term future, but currently, I don't see a
big issue not enabling Rust while developing the C side, no?

Cheers,
Miguel