linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:39:58 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:38 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Before anything else: yay! I'm really glad to see this RFC officially
> hit LKML. :)

Thanks! :)

> When originally learning Rust I was disappointed to see that (by default)
> Rust similarly ignores the overflow problem, but I'm glad to see the
> very intentional choices in the Rust-in-Linux design to deal with it
> directly. I think the default behavior should be saturate-with-WARN
> (this will match the ultimate goals of the UBSAN overflow support[1][2]
> in the C portions of the kernel). Rust code wanting wrapping/checking
> can expressly use those. The list of exploitable overflows is loooong,
> and this will remain a weakness in Rust unless we get it right from
> the start. What's not clear to me is if it's better to say "math with
> undeclared overflow expectation" will saturate" or to say "all math must
> declare its overflow expectation".

+1 Agreed, we need to get this right (and ideally make both the C and
Rust sides agree...).

Cheers,
Miguel