netdev - Re: [PATCH v8 6/7] rust: Add read_poll

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: <20250116.204925.363421369123965269.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:49:25 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: aliceryhl@...gle.com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 boqun.feng@...il.com, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com,
 tmgross@...ch.edu, ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
 gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
 a.hindborg@...sung.com, anna-maria@...utronix.de, frederic@...nel.org,
 tglx@...utronix.de, arnd@...db.de, jstultz@...gle.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
 mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
 vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
 bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/7] rust: Add read_poll_timeout functions

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 12:42:57 +0100
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:

>> If so, rather than adding a Rust-specific helper function to the C
>> side, it would be better to solve the problem on the Rust side like
>> the previous versions with c_str()! and file()! for now?
> 
> I would be okay with a scenario where older compilers just reference
> the read_poll_timeout() function in the error message, and only newer
> compilers reference the location of the caller. Of course, right now,
> only older compilers exist. But if we don't get nul-terminated
> location strings, then I do think we should make the change you're
> currently making.

Okay, let's see if we can get ACK from the scheduler maintainers with
your version, which has less impact on the C code.