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: <CANiq72nRJzBm0KuGwoUV2kOk_t3VLy7FP+H2m16VAQVKAp1j1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 21:31:14 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>, 
	Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: 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>, 
	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 9:01 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I think it's rather unlikely to land bitfields this cycle. I think Yury
> explicitly requested more discussion on bitfields and also encouraged the "two
> stage" approach [1] moving register!() first and then extract bitfields
> subsequently.

Does Yury want to maintain it? From his messages back then I am not
sure if he does or not (he suggested "some non-rust person from a
related kernel subsystem", not sure if that meant himself in this case
too).

At least, he suggested adding a `MAINTAINERS` entry, which I agreed it
was a good idea (by the way, this patch series should add it, or at
least the eventual one that adds `bitfield!`).

In any case, it has been a while since those discussions. It would be
nice to know what people think nowadays about the macro here etc.

But yeah, from my side, no rush. And if Alexandre wants to maintain
the new file and he wants a tree, I am happy to set it one more up.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel