linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] implement ww_mutex abstraction for the Rust tree

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: <20250624153102.3961f377@nimda.home>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:31:02 +0300
From: Onur <work@...rozkan.dev>
To: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <ojeda@...nel.org>,
 <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, <gary@...yguo.net>, <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
 <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, <tmgross@...ch.edu>, <dakr@...nel.org>,
 <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <will@...nel.org>,
 <longman@...hat.com>, <felipe_life@...e.com>, <daniel@...lak.dev>,
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, <simona@...ll.ch>, <airlied@...il.com>,
 <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <lyude@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] implement ww_mutex abstraction for the Rust tree

On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:20:48 +0200
"Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Tue Jun 24, 2025 at 7:34 AM CEST, Onur wrote:
> > Should we handle this in the initial implementation or leave it for
> > follow-up patches after the core abstraction of ww_mutex has landed?
> 
> Since you're writing these abstractions specifically for usage in
> drm, I think we should look at the intended use-cases there and then
> decide on an API.
> 
> So maybe Lyude or Dave can chime in :)
> 
> If you (or someone else) have another user for this API that needs it
> ASAP, then we can think about merging this and improve it later. But
> if we don't have a user, then we shouldn't merge it anyways.

I don't think this is urgent, but it might be better to land the basic
structure first and improve it gradually I think? I would be happy to
continue working for the improvements as I don't plan to leave it as
just the initial version.

I worked on the v5 review notes, but if we are going to consider
designing a different API, then it doesn't make much sense to send a v6
patch before finishing the design, which requires additional people in
the topic. That would also mean some of the ongoing review discussion
would be wasted.

---

Regards,
Onur