linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Introduce bitfield and move register macro to rust/kernel/

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: <DDC49ZIRX79X.2Q4KW0UY7WUF3@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:16:36 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@...dia.com>, "Yury Norov"
 <yury.norov@...il.com>, "Joel Fernandes" <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.com>,
 "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>,
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>, "Andreas
 Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>,
 "Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>, "Maarten Lankhorst"
 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, "Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>,
 "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>, "John Hubbard"
 <jhubbard@...dia.com>, "Timur Tabi" <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 <joel@...lfernandes.org>, "Elle Rhumsaa" <elle@...thered-steel.dev>,
 "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Andrea Righi"
 <arighi@...dia.com>, <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Introduce bitfield and move register macro to
 rust/kernel/

On Tue Oct 7, 2025 at 12:36 PM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Because letting it fully mature within nova-core also has the drawback
> that we might miss the perspective of other potential users, which may
> make us draw ourselves into a corner that will make the macro less
> useful generally speaking. We are at a stage where we can still make
> design changes if needed, but we need to hear from other users, and
> these won't come as long as the macro is in nova-core.

There are two different things here that are getting mixed up a bit.

  (1) Moving the register!() code out of nova-core to make it accessible for
      other drivers.

  (2) Generalize the bitfield implementation that so far is baked into the
      register!() code.

Both of those make sense, but they don't have to happen at the same time
necessarily.

Now, I'm not saying that we necessarily have to change the approach here. The
current merge window isn't even closed, so we have plently of time left, i.e.
there's no rush with with patch series.

However, if it helps, I'm perfectly fine to take the register!() implementation
into the I/O entry in a first step and in a second step generalize the bitfield
implementation and move it out of the register!() code.

Again, there's no rush as far as I'm concerned, yet the latter approach might
add a bit more structure and hence run a bit smoother.

- Danilo