linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] scripts: checkpatch: warn on Rust panicking methods

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: <CANiq72=J5LBxfawu3MtQpcukaXcw+pRyMWd9ueDE=od4X99R3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 19:10:43 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>
Cc: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Onur Özkan <work@...rozkan.dev>, 
	Jkhall81 <jason.kei.hall@...il.com>, dirk.behme@...bosch.com, joe@...ches.com, 
	ojeda@...nel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] scripts: checkpatch: warn on Rust panicking methods

On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:56 PM Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The question is if we could find a way to make it *consistent*?
>
> I mean how should a developer know if the warning (he gets once, or
> even if he checks an existing file with -f always) is relevant or not?
> We introduce the warning because we want to discourage the use of
> `unwrap()`. At the same time there are places where its usage is
> allowed or even needed. How to know what is valid? The warning or the
> usage?

I think usually developers use `checkpatch.pl` mostly on patches, not
existing files; plus it doesn't make the build fail. Thus I see
`checkpatch.pl` as a tool that can have way more false positives than
a linter that we need to keep strictly clean.

The idea with the `checkpatch.pl` warning was to have something we
could land easily before we got the new Clippy lints, and perhaps to
apply it in more cases than the eventual Clippy lint (since false
positives are not as concerning).

I have some context in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/15895 -> "Additional
context", and a few other issues linked in
https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/349 for the new lints.

Cheers,
Miguel