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: <CAH5fLgjw4cZ3Y3Z60v8Wtp1EsR3AjyopJBE-UzZH5H3qkFrWmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:42:26 +0200
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 Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:40 AM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon Oct 20, 2025 at 10:12 AM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 02:01:03PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Yes, keep it as-is for consistency with the rest of the file, even if
> > the file is inconsistent with the rest of `kernel`. Please go ahead and
> > file a good-first-issue for this.
>
> Before doing so, can you please answer the question above? While I'm all for
> consistency, in this specific case it seems we'd need another indirection for
> that. And I'm not convinced that's an improvement.

The choice is between adding a new type or a new trait. There's no
intrinsic advantage to choosing either one, but the rest of `kernel`
chose "new type" over "new trait", so it makes sense to be consistent.

Alice