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: <DDN1U7ZVN7O7.1OL96WGTK3VJK@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:41:18 +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 Mon Oct 20, 2025 at 11:39 AM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:35:15AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> On Mon Oct 20, 2025 at 10:13 AM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> > I ended up using i64 for simple_read_from_buffer in iov.rs instead of
>> > loff_t. But if they can differ, then yeah let's introduce a loff_t type
>> > alias.
>> 
>> No, I don't think they can differ (I used i64 in earlier version that didn't
>> make it to the list as well), but I think it could still make sense to indicate
>> the relationship with loff_t. When I see an i64, an offset into a buffer is not
>> the first thing that comes to my mind.
>> 
>> What about uaccess::Offset?
>
> Hmm. That seems wrong. loff_t is a *file position*, so it should go in
> kernel::fs, right? We're only using it in uaccess/iov because they
> happen to have utility methods to help with implementing fops entries.
> None of the "base" uaccess/iov functions use loff_t for anything since
> they deal with sizes in the address space, for which usize is the
> correct type.

Indeed, fair enough.