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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <aPSzE7DpA7DxTHmm@google.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 09:44:51 +0000
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
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 04:53:09PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> 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

You can still use a struct:

struct BinaryWriterVtable<T: BinaryWriter + Sync>;

impl<T: BinaryWriter + Sync> BinaryWriterVtable<T> {
    const VTABLE: bindings::foo = ...;
}