linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: quote: make rust-analyzer treat `core` and `std` as dependencies

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+tqQ4KNPeyAkUbrhzbd1bGSCFSRjOYGNiAjHi+6F1OzBgQRUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 00:30:51 +0900
From: Jesung Yang <y.j3ms.n@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.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>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: quote: make rust-analyzer treat `core` and
 `std` as dependencies

On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 11:06 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 1:12 PM Jesung Yang <y.j3ms.n@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > IIUC, to remove `std`, we need to patch our vendored `syn` as well to
> > not depend on `std`, right? I think it is indeed a desired change.
> >
> > If you don't mind, I'm happy to patch the vendored `syn` along with
> > this series if the team agrees. Alternatively, if you'd prefer to send
> > the patch yourself, please let me know.
>
> What are the advantages/disadvantages of doing so? Performance in rust-analyzer?

There's no noticeable performance improvement, at least in my setup.
Even though it seems desired, for now I don't think there is a clear
benefit, as `syn` is currently only used in the macros crate which
already depends on `std`. For the same reason, keeping the `std`
dependency in `syn` does not cause actual harm for the time being.

> In general, I would prefer to avoid patching vendored dependencies,
> but if there is an advantage, then I think it is fine to have small
> changes as long as upstream has merged their PR (i.e. so that we at
> least know there is a good chance we will eventually get the same
> change when we upgrade the dependency).

I think applying this series as-is and revisiting the `std` removal
when we eventually upgrade `syn` (so that the PR effectively lands in
our vendored `syn`) is also an option. If there's no upcoming upgrade
planned for the near future, I would personally prefer this approach.

Best regards,
Jesung