linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] rust: debugfs: support for binary large objects

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DDKOLD1897SY.84W93E6L8ITR@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 16:53:09 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <rafael@...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>,
 <tmgross@...ch.edu>, <mmaurer@...gle.com>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] rust: debugfs: support for binary large objects

On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 4:37 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> The reason I went with a trait is because that's consistent within the file.
>
> Otherwise, I don't mind one or the other. If we always want to use a struct, I'm
> fine with that. :)

Actually, there's another reason I forgot about since I sent the series. :)

We need it because we derive it from blanket implementations:

	impl<T: BinaryWriter + Sync> BinaryReadFile<T> for T
	impl<T: BinaryReader + Sync> BinaryWriteFile<T> for T
	impl<T: BinaryWriter + BinaryReader + Sync> BinaryReadWriteFile<T> for T