linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with function arguments

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: <CANiq72n0UkuAtW=2JZK9Y7TK4VO8rKsMSvpv52BsW5+C2z9Dew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 04:44:16 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, 
	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>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] rust: build_assert: add instructions for use with
 function arguments

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 1:52 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> More precisely, it was already *hinted* to be inline.

By inline I mean it is marked `#[inline]`, which may or may not get
inlined, but it also has other implications, e.g. codegen can get
delayed even if there are no callers and is concrete.

> Then that is conceptually wrong, because it must be a runtime check.

No, it is not true it must be a runtime check -- it depends: you can
use such a function in some cases just fine.

That is the point of `build_assert!`, after all.

> Sorry for the fussy detailed questioning here. I'm trying to bottom
> out here because CLIPPY=1 is a very solid requirement before posting
> patches.

No worries, but I don't follow what you mean here. `CLIPPY=1` is still
required to be clean etc.

Cheers,
Miguel