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: <DDN20C4Z22X3.2ML01WB1HRDRI@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:49:17 +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 11:42 AM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> 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.

My hesitation came from the assumption that we'd need another type (additional
to the existing trait). But we can indeed replace it, so that's fine.