linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] rust: tty: introduce TTY subsystem abstractions and rttyprintk

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: <2026012652-case-subsector-f671@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 13:48:14 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: engineer.jjhama@...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>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] rust: tty: introduce TTY subsystem abstractions
 and rttyprintk

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:22:07PM +0000, SeungJong Ha via B4 Relay wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This RFC patch series introduces Rust abstractions for the
> TTY subsystem and implements a sample driver, rttyprintk.
> 
> Currently, TTY abstractions are missing in the
> Rust for Linux implementation. This series aims to fill that gap.
> 
> It consists of two main parts:
> - Rust TTY abstractions

What type of new tty driver are you writing that you need these
bindings?  The need for new tty drivers is quite low based on the lack
of new ones being added to the tree anymore.  Are you sure you just
don't want a serial port driver instead?

> - The rttyprintk driver
> rttyprintk serves as the first example of a Rust TTY driver.
> I chose to port ttyprintk because its simplicity makes it and 
> ideal candidate for validating the new abstractions and demonstrating
> their usage.

I would want to see a real need for this before going any further.  It's
great that you created these bindings, but without a need, I don't see
why this should even be reviewed.

thanks,

greg k-h