linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] rust: add `bitfield!` and `register!` macros

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: <CANiq72m2tU-Zuv_MjLdjfK0qjE45YnuMmTTtrbzmrQ3=84ei=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:57:41 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
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>, 
	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>, 
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>, Steven Price <steven.price@....com>, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] rust: add `bitfield!` and `register!` macros

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 3:18 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Correct, this series came from a misunderstanding, I think Alex plans to follow
> up on it tomorrow.

I see, thanks.

> I think there has been consensus on the register!() macro, so it seems possible.
> But as always, if it works out, great -- if not, that's okay too.

I want to make things easy for everyone, and I know there is pressure
to deliver etc., but yeah... I am supposed to also push back when
things get stretched a bit too much... :)

Having said that, depending on what the "local bitfield!" entails,
i.e. how much of a hack/workaround/extra work it is, it may be best to
avoid it and go directly for `bitfield!`.

But for that to happen, we would need Linus to really do the -rc8, and
very fast agreements and reviews on it.

It seems to me the easiest is that I give you a branch/tag for you
(and others that want it) to merge with the `bitfield!` one next
cycle. That would avoid the workaround too and Alexandre having to
come up with another series etc.

Cheers,
Miguel