[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72k-ByeB4W04tf7MV0y-VPsAzBehB6BvMLPRcbXmZFUTkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 13:40:36 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] rust: iov: add iov_iter abstractions for ITER_SOURCE
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 1:27 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Technically, this covers the safety requirements from inc_len(). However, do we
> want to provide a list of justifications if the unsafe functions has a list of
> requirements, such that they are easier to match?
Yeah, I think we should at least try in places where people is OK with
it, to see how it goes, and then we can apply it elsewhere, especially
if we get a way to automate checking for it eventually.
After all, if we never start and get the ball rolling, we will never get there.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists