linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools build: Fix rust feature detection

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <r6fr6d2oqbj3km4nuvdgyjubzzae7gmqvh2u2igijxpc32mi5x@74p5kjnlygf2>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 22:07:33 +0100
From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, 
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools build: Fix rust feature detection

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 05:54:24PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
> > To fix that I've tried to add an extra dependency on the rust binary on top of
> > that after the compilation is finished. While hacky, it worked just fine, and
> > perf catched it when rust was removed. Haven't faced any issues after few
> > rounds of installing/removing rust either. If this approach sound fine, I can
> > post the patch tomorrow.
> 
> Looks hacky, can't we just try to run:
> 
> ⬢ [acme@...lbx linux]$ HAVE_RUST=$(rustc --version > /dev/null ; echo $?)
> ⬢ [acme@...lbx linux]$ echo $HAVE_RUST
> 0
> ⬢ [acme@...lbx linux]$ HAVE_RUST=$(arustc --version > /dev/null ; echo $?)
> bash: arustc: command not found
> ⬢ [acme@...lbx linux]$ echo $HAVE_RUST
> 127
> ⬢ [acme@...lbx linux]$

Do you mean replacing the whole feature check with this, instead of
compiling a dummy code?

> How would your dep on the rust binary work? where would you expect it to
> be? It may be installed on some different path, etc.

It has to be in the PATH, so the actual binary could be picked up with
"which" (it seems to be used in one other place there as well).

> Perhaps there is precedent with some other component...

I haven't found anything similar among the other features, but I can
check out other components as well.