linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] rust: device_id: make DRIVER_DATA

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: <aGceFtc7MUx9utaj@pollux>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 02:19:34 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	rafael@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, saravanak@...gle.com,
	a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
	david.m.ertman@...el.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	gary@...yguo.net, ira.weiny@...el.com, kwilczynski@...nel.org,
	leon@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, lossin@...nel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	tmgross@...ch.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] rust: device_id: make DRIVER_DATA_OFFSET optional

On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 08:41:59AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 00:15:19 +0200
> Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 6/23/25 8:09 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> >> Enable support for device ID structures that do not contain
> >> context/data field (usually named `driver_data`), making the trait
> >> usable in a wider range of subsystems and buses.
> >> Several such structures are defined in
> >> include/linux/mod_devicetable.h.
> >> This refactoring is a preparation for enabling the PHY abstractions to
> >> use device_id trait.
> >> Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> Miguel suggested that splitting the RawDeviceId trait might lead to a
> cleaner design, and I also tried that approach [v2]. But just to
> confirm ― do you prefer the original v1 approach instead?

Sorry, I didn't catch v2.

>From only looking at patch 1, I indeed prefer v1.

> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CANiq72k0sdUoBxVYghgh50+ZRV2gbDkgVjuZgJLtj=4s9852xg@mail.gmail.com/

Looking at this reply to patch 3, I can see why Miguel suggested it though.
Given that, I think splitting the trait is the correct thing to do. I'll reply
to v2.

> [v2]: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250701141252.600113-1-fujita.tomonori@gmail.com/ 
> 
> Either way works for me.
> 
> Sorry Miguel, I forgot to fix the comment typo you pointed out in v1. I'll correct it in v3.