linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] rust: add `bitfield!` macro

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: <CANiq72kNbBgiHHMpGA5FO5v3NvtLzJKHKiKDPf8XTPDwF1TQzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:08:21 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.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>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, 
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>, Edwin Peer <epeer@...dia.com>, 
	Eliot Courtney <ecourtney@...dia.com>, Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, 
	Steven Price <steven.price@....com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] rust: add `bitfield!` macro

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 1:47 PM Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com> wrote:
>
> And I think we need the same for the doctests where it fails as well then:

Yeah, since it is a macro meant for other crates, if we want to use
the feature, then we should have it in the set of Rust allowed
features for all kernel code.

But I see Alexandre has already replied and IIUC he plans to provide
it explicitly instead?

I wonder if we could just use it instead. Hmm... I see there was a PR
1.86 that significantly reworked the implementation, and Debian has
1.85 only, so perhaps it is a good idea to conservatively avoid the
feature, even if we may not hit any differences in practice.

Cheers,
Miguel