linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] rust: file: add Rust abstraction for `struct file`

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, 1 Feb 2024 10:41:58 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: 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>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>, 
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, 
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] rust: file: add Rust abstraction for `struct file`

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:38 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>
> On 01.02.24 10:33, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:31 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29.01.24 17:34, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 4:04 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
> >>>>> +///   closed.
> >>>>> +/// * A light refcount must be dropped before returning to userspace.
> >>>>> +#[repr(transparent)]
> >>>>> +pub struct File(Opaque<bindings::file>);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +// SAFETY: By design, the only way to access a `File` is via an immutable reference or an `ARef`.
> >>>>> +// This means that the only situation in which a `File` can be accessed mutably is when the
> >>>>> +// refcount drops to zero and the destructor runs. It is safe for that to happen on any thread, so
> >>>>> +// it is ok for this type to be `Send`.
> >>>>
> >>>> Technically, `drop` is never called for `File`, since it is only used
> >>>> via `ARef<File>` which calls `dec_ref` instead. Also since it only contains
> >>>> an `Opaque`, dropping it is a noop.
> >>>> But what does `Send` mean for this type? Since it is used together with
> >>>> `ARef`, being `Send` means that `File::dec_ref` can be called from any
> >>>> thread. I think we are missing this as a safety requirement on
> >>>> `AlwaysRefCounted`, do you agree?
> >>>> I think the safety justification here could be (with the requirement added
> >>>> to `AlwaysRefCounted`):
> >>>>
> >>>>        SAFETY:
> >>>>        - `File::drop` can be called from any thread.
> >>>>        - `File::dec_ref` can be called from any thread.
> >>>
> >>> This wording was taken from rust/kernel/task.rs. I think it's out of
> >>> scope to reword it.
> >>
> >> Rewording the safety docs on `AlwaysRefCounted`, yes that is out of scope,
> >> I was just checking if you agree that the current wording is incomplete.
> >
> > That's not what I meant. The wording of this safety comment is
> > identical to the wording in other existing safety comments in the
> > kernel, such as e.g. the one for `impl Send for Task`.
>
> Ah I see. But I still think changing it is better, since it would only get
> shorter. The comment on `Task` can be fixed later.
> Or do you want to keep consistency here? Because I would prefer to make
> this right and then change `Task` later.

What would you like me to change it to?

For example:
// SAFETY: It is okay to send references to a File across thread boundaries.

Alice