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: <20250301132229.3115698-1-safinaskar@zohomail.com>
Date: Sat,  1 Mar 2025 16:22:29 +0300
From: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>
To: uecker@...raz.at,
	dan.carpenter@...aro.org
Cc: airlied@...il.com,
	boqun.feng@...il.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	hch@...radead.org,
	hpa@...or.com,
	ksummit@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Rust kernel policy

Hi, Martin Uecker and Dan Carpenter.

> No, this absolutely is useful.  This is what UBSan does now

> BTW: Another option I am investigating it to have UBsan insert traps
> into the code and then have the compiler emit a warning only when

Clang sanitizers should not be enabled in production.
See https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/02/17/9 for details