From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE32F14A627; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:42:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740498151; cv=none; b=hJjcLGnm/TAZ/aXDXTB0hjvXChmM7vTR7X/XNnLzs2/f6k0faP2asPSOVu/KiBjUOb29urhGVEmgG+yV0jMbqwOyWwRIpKNgCncgcxOdzdgzZ6Dy5/pMq2dSqZ93OGip77BybE9hEhjFJ94FOEL00StGZxh9vwnZFhTgml/oHs0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740498151; c=relaxed/simple; bh=onozFvlgtS5C+M6OWjVfwwdRmRVuXkGoh6ZZnb4TH2E=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KpTqUGchbQKh0PV1R+hVAfmyDDA18kl8ed2jgX4NfJWK9uj+RCZsaWc5Fpk7+XtO72gGCFQ4g4zKZdbN5kabo1JLwRnwQdnMxXphD9Q8QV87Zl6nPTaXUXzh81FRraaK8JSF9OVVJwc7y/941KAGdhDwSElZJiLujZ9A303zTJw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=CWgPECr+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="CWgPECr+" Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([76.133.66.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 51PFgKn21329958 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:42:21 -0800 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 51PFgKn21329958 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2025021701; t=1740498142; bh=onozFvlgtS5C+M6OWjVfwwdRmRVuXkGoh6ZZnb4TH2E=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CWgPECr+v+nsYievNAxJAMrXPU4mLjMa86deAsHfSC3+8r9qPOzR65khmAC9IbehW S/eZuKfQ1CEWbEGusk1ZMlyx9Aq2zSem1mj+4ulqu0j5WwOwtBPK4F1ffOkSAuTyLz oH0nRCfPDX8b5Bb8nHIay1D4JQ4orpROHTwttPjwKUJ2oMg9KYQTDCoGP6hJYIYYkF VvUOIn8stbZ5Hgxb3iwzAYkQgrr+tEOLhjYxLmCJwB8+zgTYfTN1JjAG4ZduoCd9cV Jbk4HUb4PZ0haelG1nyyaZvfzW04nOyA+dSD9Y1sbq+SbXgSMJccJtLeXJtdBPvFWZ ELKqjUDzy7Q6w== Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:42:19 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" To: Ventura Jack , torvalds@linux-foundation.org CC: airlied@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, david.laight.linux@gmail.com, ej@inai.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, hch@infradead.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: C aggregate passing (Rust kernel policy) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9610C397-39C8-479B-A727-1091BB8548C9@zytor.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On February 22, 2025 2:03:48 AM PST, Ventura Jack wrote: >>Gcc used to initialize it all, but as of gcc-15 it apparently says >>"Oh, the standard allows this crazy behavior, so we'll do it by >default"=2E >> >>Yeah=2E People love to talk about "safe C", but compiler people have >>actively tried to make C unsafer for decades=2E The C standards >>committee has been complicit=2E I've ranted about the crazy C alias >>rules before=2E > >Unsafe Rust actually has way stricter rules for aliasing than C=2E For yo= u >and others who don't like C's aliasing, it may be best to avoid unsafe Ru= st=2E From=20what I was reading in this tree, Rust doesn't actually have any rules= at all?!