linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: clean Rust 1.86.0 new `clippy::needless

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: <CAJ-ks9nfEg=sdn_-q+xOc+k9mU0pdMuumwRb76LXzE3RcOtg6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:41:06 -0400
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, 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>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: clean Rust 1.86.0 new `clippy::needless_continue` cases

On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 11:27 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 3:59 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rather than disabling globally, why not `#[expect]` these instances
> > with a reason?
>
> That is an option sometimes, yeah, but in this case, writing those
> lines is also a burden -- one that is, I would say, worse than just
> using `()`.
>
> It would also need to be `allow` here, not `expect`, because older
> versions do not complain, which makes it even worse...

👍

> So it is all about what a lint gives us in exchange of those false
> positives, and about how much time people would need to spend on it. I
> have always supported adding lints (I think I added this one, long
> ago, in fact), but I don't want that we overdo it either, so I am
> happy disabling it if it is going to be too painful.

The counterfactual is hard to prove - you don't know what true
positives the lint would catch. In my opinion disabling lints is
risking throwing the baby out with the bathwater.