linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] rust: pci: move I/O infrastructure to separate file

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: <DDJR102F5NFB.1X5IVJQ6FK3CD@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:34:57 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <kwilczynski@...nel.org>, <ojeda@...nel.org>,
 <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <gary@...yguo.net>,
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, <lossin@...nel.org>, <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
 <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rust: pci: move I/O infrastructure to separate file

On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 12:58 AM CEST, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 08:14:30PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> Move the PCI I/O infrastructure to a separate sub-module in order to
>> keep things organized.
>
>> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci/io.rs
>
>> +/// A PCI BAR to perform I/O-Operations on.
>> ...
>> +/// memory mapped PCI bar and its size.
>> ...
>> +    /// `ioptr` must be a valid pointer to the memory mapped PCI bar number `num`.
>
> I know this is just a move, but "BAR" vs "bar" usage is inconsistent.
> I think "BAR" is clearer in comments.

Yes, I agree.

>> +    /// Mapps an entire PCI-BAR after performing a region-request on it. I/O operation bound checks
>> ...
>> +    /// Mapps an entire PCI-BAR after performing a region-request on it.
>
> Similarly, s/Mapps/Maps/ and s/PCI-BAR/PCI BAR/

Thanks for catching those!

I think we should fix those in a follow-up patch. Even for trivial things, I
prefer not to fix them with a code move.

Those could also be a candidate for the list of "good first issues" of the Rust
for Linux project [1].

(Same for your the "legacy vs. INTx" inconsistency you spotted in the other
patch.)

[1] https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/contribute