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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DDMA6OR8V1L3.22YQDEKL20MB5@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 14:01:03 +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 Sun Oct 19, 2025 at 11:44 AM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> 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 = ...;
> }

Yeah, but do we get something for adding yet another type in this case?

Another point to consider is if we want a more generic fops abstraction type.

In any case, I'd like to add this as good first issue for the whole file to be
changed accordingly.