Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] rust: security: replace `core::mem::zeroed` with `pin_init::zeroed`

Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] rust: security: replace `core::mem::zeroed` with `pin_init::zeroed`

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:31 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 5:19 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm happy to take this via the LSM tree, but it would be nice to see a
> > Reviewed-by/Acked-by from someone with a better understanding of Rust
> > :)
>
> I think the idea is to take all these through the Rust one with
> Acked-bys from the maintainers (or we can skip this one and do it in a
> future cycle when the first patches get in).

[CC'd the LSM list, as I just realized it wasn't on the original patch
posting; in the future please include the LSM list on LSM related Rust
patchsets/patches]

That's fine, it wasn't clear from the post that was the plan, and I
vaguely recalled from past conversations with Rust devs that they
preferred Rust wrappers/helpers to go in via the associated subsystem
tree.

> In any case, Benno is very knowledgeable in Rust -- he wrote the
> library being called here -- so unless you see something out of the
> ordinary, it seems OK to me.

My comment asking for additional review/ACK tags wasn't due to any
distrust of Benno - thank you for your work Benno - it is just a
matter of trying to make sure there are at least two sets of
(knowledgeable) eyes on a patch before it is merged.  If it is
something I'm merging into one the trees I maintain, normally I count
myself as the second set of eyes, but in this case I don't (yet)
consider myself a knowledgeable Rust reviewer so I was asking for an
additional explicit review tag.  If someone else is going to merge
this patch{set}, then it's up to them; although I would hope they
would do something similar.

-- 
paul-moore.com

Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] rust: security: replace `core::mem::zeroed` with `pin_init::zeroed`

[Benno Lossin]

On Thu Aug 14, 2025 at 5:54 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:31 AM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 5:19 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm happy to take this via the LSM tree, but it would be nice to see a
>> > Reviewed-by/Acked-by from someone with a better understanding of Rust
>> > :)
>>
>> I think the idea is to take all these through the Rust one with
>> Acked-bys from the maintainers (or we can skip this one and do it in a
>> future cycle when the first patches get in).
>
> [CC'd the LSM list, as I just realized it wasn't on the original patch
> posting; in the future please include the LSM list on LSM related Rust
> patchsets/patches]

I checked and I didn't find a maintainers entry for that this file & the
LSM list. I'm using scripts/get_maintainer.pl to get the people I send
patches to and that also checks git commits, so I guess it added you
through that (which is very good :). So can we add a maintainers entry
for `rust/kernel/security.rs` so people don't miss this in the future?
Thanks!

---
Cheers,
Benno

Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] rust: security: replace `core::mem::zeroed` with `pin_init::zeroed`

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 5:54 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> That's fine, it wasn't clear from the post that was the plan, and I
> vaguely recalled from past conversations with Rust devs that they
> preferred Rust wrappers/helpers to go in via the associated subsystem
> tree.

Yeah, it is still the case that Rust abstractions and Rust code in
general should land through the best tree possible.

However, sometimes tree-wide improvements may be easy to do with
simple Acked-bys.

> My comment asking for additional review/ACK tags wasn't due to any
> distrust of Benno - thank you for your work Benno - it is just a

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean that you distrusted Benno or anything like
that. I was trying to give context in case it helped you evaluate the
patch/risk, which also allowed me at the same time to acknowledge
Benno's experience/work.

We were mainly expecting the Acked-bys to proceed with the cleanups
here to remove these unsafe blocks, but we definitely want more tags
if possible in all patches, as always (by the time this gets applied,
we will hopefully get some more).

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] rust: security: replace `core::mem::zeroed` with `pin_init::zeroed`

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 1:28 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu Aug 14, 2025 at 5:54 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:31 AM Miguel Ojeda
> > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 5:19 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm happy to take this via the LSM tree, but it would be nice to see a
> >> > Reviewed-by/Acked-by from someone with a better understanding of Rust
> >> > :)
> >>
> >> I think the idea is to take all these through the Rust one with
> >> Acked-bys from the maintainers (or we can skip this one and do it in a
> >> future cycle when the first patches get in).
> >
> > [CC'd the LSM list, as I just realized it wasn't on the original patch
> > posting; in the future please include the LSM list on LSM related Rust
> > patchsets/patches]
>
> I checked and I didn't find a maintainers entry for that this file & the
> LSM list. I'm using scripts/get_maintainer.pl to get the people I send
> patches to and that also checks git commits, so I guess it added you
> through that (which is very good :). So can we add a maintainers entry
> for `rust/kernel/security.rs` so people don't miss this in the future?
> Thanks!

Here ya go ...

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20250814215952.238316-2-paul@paul-moore.com/

-- 
paul-moore.com