linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust/faux: Add missing parent argument to Registration::new()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025022628-cyclist-clubbing-9762@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:31:23 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
Cc: rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust/faux: Add missing parent argument to
 Registration::new()

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:51:26AM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-02-26 at 11:01 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I guess you can add parent can be NULL to the SAFETY line?
> > 
> > Sorry, I thought I would just leave it this way without a parent pointer
> > until you actually had a user that needed it.  And then we could add the
> > new parameter and fix up all callers.  No need to add support for it yet
> > without that, changing apis is easy!  :)
> > 
> > Do you have a real user for this any time soon?
> > 
> 
> Not particularly! My thought process was mostly just this seems like a simple
> enough addition that it would probably be easy to add it now when we don't
> have any users upstream yet rather than building up faux device users in rust
> and potentially having to refactor later to add such an argument.
> 
> I don't think the refactoring would be that much work either, but it seemed
> harmless to just get it over with now.

Ok, fair enough, want me to take this one and you'll figure out if/when
the SAFETY comment needs to be changed for the parent pointer as an
add-on patch?

Or do you want to send a new version?  Your choice.

thanks,

greg k-h