Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] RISC-V: enable rust
From: Miguel Ojeda
Date: Thu Jan 25 2024 - 07:50:30 EST
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 1:31 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I chatted with the clang built linux folks about this yesterday, Nathan
> agreed that dealing with incompatibility issues iff they crop up is a
> reasonable way to go.
>
> If by "the bindgen found one matches the C compiler" you mean that the
> version of libclang used by bindgen matches the C compiler, then that
> sounds great.
Yeah, exactly. So, unless I am misunderstanding, the incompatibilities
could only happen if someone ignores the warning. We could make it an
error too.
> > For `bindgen` under GCC builds, we will eventually want a "proper" way
> > to use GCC instead (or possibly other approaches like querying the
> > information): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-bindgen/issues/1949.
>
> > Recently, there has been a thread in our Zulip and a couple people are
> > experimenting: https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/288089-General/topic/Bindgen.20--.20GCC.20backend.20port
>
> That link for me goes to a message on 22/01, so later than the email you
> sent.
Zulip seems to scroll to the latest message in the topic -- you should
be able to scroll a bit up, but if that doesn't work, this link should
go to the first message:
https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/288089-General/topic/Bindgen.20--.20GCC.20backend.20port/near/412609074
> That said, I gave things another spin today, in a different environment,
> as a final check before sending and found an issue causing kernel
> panics. RISC-V (and x86/arm64) supports kcfi (CFI_CLANG) but enabling
> sanitisers seems to be a nightly only option for rustc. The kernel I
> built today had CFI_CLANG enabled and that caused panics when the rust
> samples were loaded.
>
> The CFI_CLANG Kconfig entry has a cc-option test for whether the option
> is supported, but from a quick check I don't see a comparable test to
> use for rust. Even if a test was added, the current flag is an unstable
> one, so I am not sure if testing for it is the right call in the first
> place, given the stabilised flag would be entirely different?
Yeah, KCFI and other mitigations is WIP -- Cc'ing Ramon and Matthew
who may be able to tell us the latest status.
Testing for unstable flags is fine, i.e. we only support a single
compiler, so we can change the name when we do the upgrade.
Cheers,
Miguel