linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] rust: pin-init: allow `pub` fields in `derive(Zeroable)`

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: <aAekPSsKnQWJSBhQ@Mac.home>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 07:14:21 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: 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>, Fiona Behrens <me@...enk.dev>,
	Alban Kurti <kurti@...icto.ai>, Michael Vetter <jubalh@...oru.org>,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] rust: pin-init: allow `pub` fields in
 `derive(Zeroable)`

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 08:30:40AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Tue Apr 22, 2025 at 6:55 AM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:18:33PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >> Add support for parsing `pub`, `pub(crate)` and `pub(super)` to the
> >> derive macro `Zeroable`.
> >> 
> >> Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/pin-init/pull/42/commits/e8311e52ca57273e7ed6d099144384971677a0ba
> >> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
> >
> > Kindly request tests/examples for this patch and the following one
> > (patch #7) ;-)
> 
> If you send a patch, I'll take it :)
> 

First, I'm happy to help improve pin-init, *if* I fully understand the
changes and have the cycle ;-)

However, here we are at the review process, so I need these examples to
close the gaps between the implementation and the usage to provide any
meaningful review. There's no example/test in the commit log, the kernel
code and (I've checked) the GitHub repo. Although I fully trust you, but
there is no second source that could help me verify the changes easily.

In this case, it may be special, because you're in fact syncing an
external repo with the kernel part, i.e. the development is done, so if
we trust the external repo and of course, if no obvious error is
founded during review (from the people who can review), we should merge
it in. If that's the case, this patchset is more of an "FYI" instead of
a development process IMO. Is this the case here?

Regards,
Boqun

> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>