netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] rust: core abstractions for network PHY drivers

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: <20231011.160458.2187571498289000541.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:04:58 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: tmgross@...ch.edu
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
 miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, wedsonaf@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] rust: core abstractions for network
 PHY drivers

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:07:18 -0400
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 11:24 AM FUJITA Tomonori
> <fujita.tomonori@...il.com> wrote:
>> Trevor gave Reviewed-by. Not perfect but reasonable shape, IMHO. Seems
>> that we have been discussing the same topics like locking, naming, etc
>> again and again.
> 
> To be clear: this is ONLY for the rust design, I am not at all
> qualified to review the build system integration. I provided a review
> with the known caveats that:

I think that it's safe to assume that subsystem maintainers understand that.

I really apprecate your feedback on the patchset.

> 1. The current enum handling is fragile, but only to the extent that
> we do not handle values not specified in the C-side enum. I am not
> sure what we can do better here until bindgen provides better
> solutions.
> 2. Types for #define are not ideal
> https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CALNs47tnXWM3aVpeNMkuVZAJKc=seWxLAoLgSwqP0Jms+Mfc_A@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> These seem to me to be reasonable concessions at this time, but of
> course the other reviewers will request further changes or perhaps
> have suggestions for these items.

For me, they are an long-term issue.