Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] rust: use strict provenance APIs

Tamir Duberstein
2025-03-15T11:40:50Z

On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 5:44 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> wrote:
>
> On Fri Mar 14, 2025 at 11:20 PM CET, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 6:00 PM Miguel Ojeda
> > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:18 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I don't know when we'll be bumping the minimum version. IIRC 1.85.0 is
> >> > going to be in debian trixie, so eventually we could bump it to that,
> >> > but I'm not sure what the time frame will be for that.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe we can salvage this effort by gating both the lint and the
> >> > unstable features on the versions where it works? @Miguel, what's your
> >> > opinion?
> >> >
> >> > We could even make it simple, requiring 1.84 and not bothering with the
> >> > older versions.
> >>
> >> Regarding Debian Trixie: unknown, since my understanding is that it
> >> does not have a release date yet, but apparently mid May is the Hard
> >> Freeze and then it may take e.g. a month or two to the release.
> >>
> >> And when it releases, we may want to wait a while before bumping it,
> >> depending on how much time has passed since Rust 1.85.0 and depending
> >> on whether we managed to get e.g. Ubuntu LTSs to provide a versioned
> >> package etc.
>
> Yeah that's what I thought, thanks for confirming.
>
> >> If something simple works, then let's just go for that -- we do not
> >> care too much about older versions for linting purposes, since people
> >> should be testing with the latest stable too anyway.
> >
> > It's not going to be simple because `rust_common_flags` is defined
> > before the config is read, which means I'll have to sprinkle
> > conditional logic in even more places to enable the lints.
> >
> > The most minimal version of this patch would drop all the build system
> > changes and just have conditionally compiled polyfills for the strict
> > provenance APIs. Are folks OK with that?
>
> So you'd not enable the lint, but fix all occurrences? I think we should
> still have the lint (if it's too cumbersome, then let's only enable it
> in the kernel crate).

👍