linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] rust: use strict provenance APIs

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: <D8H1B8HT45UJ.OQ8N8YS92UL5@proton.me>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:00:50 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Russ Weight <russ.weight@...ux.dev>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] rust: use strict provenance APIs

On Sat Mar 15, 2025 at 1:37 PM CET, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 09:34:42AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> [...]
>> > The rest Rust code changes look good to me. Although I would suggest you
>> > to split this patch into several patches: you can do the conversion from
>> > "as" pattern to provenance API one file by one file, and this make it
>> > easier for people to review. And after the conversions are done, you can
>> > introduce the Makefile changes.
>> 
>> I think it's fine to do several of the `as` conversions in a single
>
> Well, "fine" != "recommended", right? ;-) If the patch was split,
> reviewers would be able to give Reviewed-by to individual patches that
> looks fine trivially. Then it's easier to make progress every iteration,
> and also allows partially applying the changes. Of course it doesn't
> have to be file-by-file.

While I see your point, in this case splitting file-by-file is too much.
v4 has: 9 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-). I've seen
much bigger changes that do smaller things like this patch.

At around 150 lines added + deleted I find it more and more difficult.

---
Cheers,
Benno