linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] rust: pin-init: add `#[bind]` attribute to access previously initialized fields

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: <DCP456FHT625.1L5BVZ4LPD8VQ@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 14:19:00 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Danilo Krummrich"
 <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex Gaynor"
 <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, "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>, "Fiona Behrens" <me@...enk.dev>, "Alban
 Kurti" <kurti@...icto.ai>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rust: pin-init: add `#[bind]` attribute to access
 previously initialized fields

On Wed Sep 10, 2025 at 12:40 PM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 12:36 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed Sep 10, 2025 at 12:17 PM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 12:07:53PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> >> Assigning a field a value in an initializer macro can be marked with the
>> >> `#[bind]` attribute. Doing so creates a `let` binding with the same
>> >> name. This `let` binding has the type `Pin<&mut T>` if the field is
>> >> structurally pinned or `&mut T` otherwise (where `T` is the type of the
>> >> field).
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
>> >
>> > Is there a reason we can't apply this to all fields and avoid the
>> > attribute?
>>
>> Adding the attribute was due to Boqun's concern on v1 [1]. I think it
>> might be surprising too, but I'm also happy with no attribute.
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aLshd0_C-1rh3FAg@tardis-2.local
>
> IMO the ideal is if it works without an attribute. Perhaps trying that
> in the kernel is a reasonable experiment to find out whether that's
> reasonable to do for the general language feature?

@Boqun what is your opinion on this?

I'm open to take v2 or v1, whatever you guys prefer.

---
Cheers,
Benno