linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] rust: sync: reduce stack usage of `UniqueArc::try_new

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:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 19:56:31 +0200
From:   Alice Ryhl <alice@...l.io>
To:     Benno Lossin <y86-dev@...tonmail.com>
Cc:     rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] rust: sync: reduce stack usage of
 `UniqueArc::try_new_uninit`

On 4/3/23 18:05, Benno Lossin wrote:
> `UniqueArc::try_new_uninit` calls `Arc::try_new(MaybeUninit::uninit())`.
> This results in the uninitialized memory being placed on the stack,
> which may be arbitrarily large due to the generic `T` and thus could
> cause a stack overflow for large types.
> 
> Change the implementation to use the pin-init API which enables in-place
> initialization. In particular it avoids having to first construct and
> then move the uninitialized memory from the stack into the final location.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <y86-dev@...tonmail.com>
> Cc: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>
> Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
> Cc: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>

Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>

> 
>       /// Tries to allocate a new [`UniqueArc`] instance whose contents are not initialised yet.
>       pub fn try_new_uninit() -> Result<UniqueArc<MaybeUninit<T>>, AllocError> {
> -        Ok(UniqueArc::<MaybeUninit<T>> {
> +        // INVARIANT: The refcount is initialised to a non-zero value.
> +        let inner = Box::try_init::<AllocError>(try_init!(ArcInner {
> +            // SAFETY: There are no safety requirements for this FFI call.
> +            refcount: Opaque::new(unsafe { bindings::REFCOUNT_INIT(1) }),
> +            data <- init::uninit::<T, AllocError>(),
> +        }? AllocError))?;
> +        Ok(UniqueArc {
>               // INVARIANT: The newly-created object has a ref-count of 1.
> -            inner: Arc::try_new(MaybeUninit::uninit())?,
> +            // SAFETY: The pointer from the `Box` is valid.
> +            inner: unsafe { Arc::from_inner(Box::leak(inner).into()) },
>           })
>       }
>   }

I'm curious - do you know whether this compiles to the same machine code 
as this?

pub fn try_new_uninit() -> Result<UniqueArc<MaybeUninit<T>>, AllocError> {
     let inner: Box<MaybeUninit<ArcInner<T>>> = Box::try_new_uninit()?;
     let ptr = Box::into_raw(inner) as *mut ArcInner<T>;
     addr_of_mut!((*ptr).refcount).write(bindings::REFCOUNT_INIT(1));
     Ok(UniqueArc {
         inner: Arc {
             ptr: unsafe { NonNull::new_unchecked(ptr) },
             _p: PhantomData,
         }
     })
}