On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 07:22:54PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 6:51 PM Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Currently randstruct does not support rust so we have Kconfig dependencies > > which prevent rust being enabled when randstruct is. Unfortunately this > > prevents rust being enabled in allmodconfig, our standard coverage build. > > randstruct gets turned on by default, then the dependency on !RANDSTRUCT > > causes rust to get disabled. > > > > Work around this by disabling randstruct by default if we have a usable > > rust toolchain and rust support for the architecture, circular > > dependencies prevent us directly depending on !RUST. This means we might > > end up with a configuration that disables both rust and randstruct but > > hopefully it's more likely go give the expected result. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]> > > Thanks Mark! > > Kees, Gustavo: applying this would help Mark's testing of Rust in > linux-next, which is important to keep. > > An alternative would be to move forward with `RANDSTRUCT` support: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/[email protected]/ > > Either the conditional (on the Rust side) or the unconditional > approaches (modifying the C side) should be fine, i.e. whatever > Kees/Gustavo think is best. The unconditional one would make things > easier on the Rust side, but it is a "bigger" change in terms of > impact. We can always start with the conditional one instead.
Oops, I missed this v2. :) For the linux-next testing, are you doing GCC + llvm rustc builds? IIUC, then the support patch mentioned, I think, doesn't actually solve the problem? -Kees -- Kees Cook
