linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lsm: rust: mark SecurityCtx methods inline

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: <CAHC9VhT3DqOeYbC+GCQRgH3NNUiOk6Sh=6fzsFaiHk2LEFbi2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 16:57:24 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, 
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 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>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lsm: rust: mark SecurityCtx methods inline

On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 7:04 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 11:55 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> >
> > Beyond those nitpicks, this looks okay to me based on my *extremely*
> > limited Rust knowledge.  With the minor requested changes in place,
> > would you prefer me to take this via the LSM tree, or would you prefer
> > it to go up to Linus via a more Rust-y tree?
>
> In general, if a subsystem is willing to take Rust-related patches
> through their tree, that is the ideal scenario! So please definitely
> feel free to pick it up on your side (and thanks!); otherwise, I can
> pick it up with your Acked-by.
>
> Some days ago I wrote a summary of the usual discussion we have around
> this (copy-pasting here for convenience) ...

Hi Miguel,

Thanks.  Yes, I've seen the summary and the recent threads around Rust
in the Linux kernel.  I don't want to drag all of that up here, but I
will simply say that from the perspective of the LSM framework we're
happy to work with the Rust devs to ensure that the LSM framework is
well supported with Rust bindings.  However, I will add that my own
Rust related efforts are going to be very limited as my understanding
of Rust is still frustratingly low; until that improves I'll be
reliant on others like Alice and you to submit patches for
discussion/acceptance when there are issues.  Thankfully that has
proven to work fairly well over the past few months and I would like
to see that continue.

As far as the mechanics of which tree to merge code, I'll probably
continue to ask in most cases simply so we are all clear on where the
patches will land and how they get up to Linus.  From my perspective
there is no harm in asking, and I *really* want to encourage
cross-subsystem communication as much as I can; I've been seeing an
increasing trend towards compartmentalization across subsystems and I
believe the best way to push back against that is to talk a bit more,
even if it is just a mundane "my tree or yours?".

-- 
paul-moore.com