linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/13] Kbuild: 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:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:09:59 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@...reload.com>,
        Finn Behrens <me@...enk.de>,
        Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] Kbuild: Rust support

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:05 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Typical Rust error handling should match the regular kernel
> > IS_ERR/ERR_PTR/PTR_ERR model fairly well, although the syntax is
> > fairly different (and it's not limited to pointers).
> 
> Yeah, exactly. We already have a `KernelResult<T>` type which is a
> `Result<T, Error>`, where `Error` is a wrapper for the usual kernel
> int errors.
> 
> So, for instance, a function that can either fail or return `Data`
> would have a declaration like:
> 
>     pub fn foo() -> KernelResult<Data>
> 
> A caller that needs to handle the error can use pattern matching or
> one of the methods in `Result`. And if they only need to bubble the
> error up, they can use the ? operator:
> 
>     pub fn bar() -> KernelResult<Data> {
>         let data = foo()?;
> 
>         // `data` is already a `Data` here, not a `KernelResult<Data>`
>     }

Umm...  A fairly common situation is

foo() returns a pointer to struct foo instance or ERR_PTR()
bar() returns a pointer to struct bar instance of ERR_PTR()

bar()
{
	struct foo *p;
	struct bar *res;
	.... // do some work, grab a mutex, etc.
	p = foo();
	if (IS_ERR(p))
		res = ERR_CAST(p); // (void *)p, internally; conceptually it's
				   // ERR_PTR(PTR_ERR(p));
	else
		res = blah();
	.... // matching cleanup
	return res;
}

How well would ? operator fit that pattern?  _If_ it's just a syntax sugar
along the lines of "if argument matches Err(_), return Err(_)", the types
shouldn't be an issue, but that might need some fun with releasing resources,
etc.  If it's something more elaborate... details, please.