linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Rust: Fix typedefs for resource_size_t and phys_addr

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: <aRRgbZ67cuW4ZoBN@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:24:45 +0000
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Abdiel Janulgue <abdiel.janulgue@...il.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Rust: Fix typedefs for resource_size_t and phys_addr_t

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:12:32AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:49 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > This changes ResourceSize to use the resource_size_t typedef (currently
> > ResourceSize is defined as phys_addr_t), and moves ResourceSize to
> > kernel::io and defines PhysAddr next to it. Any usage of ResourceSize or
> > bindings::phys_addr_t that references a physical address is updated to
> > use the new PhysAddr typedef.
> 
> Should we have these as actual types instead of aliases? i.e. same
> discussion as for `Offset`.
> 
> If there is a change of these getting mixed up, then I think we should
> just pay that price (not necessarily now, of course).

Maybe later. Right now I think it's more trouble than it's worth.

> > I included some cc stable annotations because I think it is useful to
> > backport this to v6.18. This is to make backporting drivers to the 6.18
> > LTS easier as we will not have to worry about changing imports when
> > backporting.
> 
> For context, will those drivers be backported upstream too?

I could imagine cases where a normal fix gets backported upstream and
benefits from this, but I mainly thought it was useful for backports
that happen downstream.

> i.e. we have sometimes backported bits to simplify further backporting
> elsewhere, which is fine and up to the stable team of course, but I am
> not sure if using Option 1 (i.e. the Cc tag) may be a bit confusing in
> the log, i.e. Option 2 or 3 offer a better chance to give a reason.

Using a different option makes sense to me.

Alice