linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts: generate_rust

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9kps0L-VenCoHdYuTvRphe7-dk75koutbiRfNUKGi5zjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:38:27 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...nel.org>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...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>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, 
	Boris-Chengbiao Zhou <bobo1239@....de>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, 
	Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, Fiona Behrens <me@...enk.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: generate_rust_analyzer.py: avoid FD leak

On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 9:09 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 5:44 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Use a context manager to avoid leaking file descriptors.
>
> This may have been intentionally written like that for simplicity,
> since I think CPython closes them immediately in practice even if it
> does not guarantee it (and I think the kernel may be assuming CPython
> given the version requirement?).

I'm not sure how CPython could close the FD immediately - it would
require the GC to run, at least? Anyway, agree with you below:

> Nevertheless, it is better to be explicit and proper, but it is not
> urgent, so I would say let's put this in rust-analyzer after the merge
> window even if you end up considering it a fix.

Works for me.

> Like in the other one, I don't see the Tested-by from Daniel, so I
> would suggest taking the chance to double-check that meanwhile too.

I think you're right. I'll strip that tag.

> Thanks!

Thanks for reviewing!