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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DAURXDWGWEDV.2GZ129VC6IFKF@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:48:39 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Onur" <work@...rozkan.dev>
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 Jun 24, 2025 at 2:31 PM CEST, Onur wrote:
> 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 don't think we should land the basic API when we don't have a user
in-tree or blessed by the maintainers.

> 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.

I would just wait for DRM to say something :)

---
Cheers,
Benno