linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8] rust: add new macro for common bitflag operations

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: <87bjivf1dd.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:31:58 +0100
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Filipe Xavier <felipeaggger@...il.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 <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
 Alice
 Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo
 Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: daniel.almeida@...labora.com, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
 felipe_life@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lyude Paul
 <lyude@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] rust: add new macro for common bitflag operations

"Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net> writes:

> On Thu Jan 15, 2026 at 12:14 PM GMT, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>>> "Filipe Xavier" <felipeaggger@...il.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We have seen a proliferation of mod_whatever::foo::Flags
>>>> being defined with essentially the same implementation
>>>> for BitAnd, BitOr, contains and etc.
>>>>
>>>> This macro aims to bring a solution for this,
>>>> allowing to generate these methods for user-defined structs.
>>>> With some use cases in KMS and upcoming GPU drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Link: https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/288089-General/topic/We.20really.20need.20a.20common.20.60Flags.60.20type
>>>> Suggested-by: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
>>>> Suggested-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Xavier <felipeaggger@...il.com>
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it would be useful to add:
>>>
>>> impl Flags {
>>>      unsafe from_raw(value: Repr) -> {
>>>      ...
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> impl TryFrom<Repr> for Flag {
>>>      // Succeed if `value` is a valid `Flag` enum bit pattern.
>>> }
>>>
>>> impl TryFrom<Repr> for Flags {
>>>      // Succeed if `value` is the logical OR of valid enum bit patterns.
>>> }
>>
>> Also bitwise operations on the underlying type such as
>>
>>   impl BitOrAssign<Flag> for u32 {
>>   ...
>>   }
>>
>> Not sure if that is possible with the orphan rule, but it would be nice.
>> I was trying to
>>
>>   lim.features |= request::Feature::Rotational;
>
> This is allowed by orphan rules, in a similar way that you can implement
> `From<Local> for Foreign`.
>
> However I don't think this is desirable feature? Why can't a conversion be used
> if you're using raw reprs?
>
> I think we should discourage the use of raw integers when bitflags can be used,
> adding that (or even `TryFrom`) can be a negative incentive.

In this case I have a C struct with a flag field. It would not be
ergonomic to read out the field, convert to `Flag` type, do the
operation, and store back again.

This assignment is in abstraction code. I could use the raw bindings
constant for the operation, but I would rather use the Rust type.

I do not think there is any risk by allowing operators between flags and
integers. What situation do you imagine where there would be a problem?

Best regards
Andreas Hindborg