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]
Message-ID: <CANiq72k6Vv2L+q9iV6Djx1=VGYCANegOLb_Kp-yMscMgYzvfRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:24:16 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Laine Taffin Altman <alexanderaltman@...com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, 
	Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 
	Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: init: remove impl Zeroable for Infallible

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:34 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>
> I can re-send it for you again, or do you want to send it yourself?
> I think it is also a good idea to add a link to [1] in the code, since
> the above explanation is rather long and fits better in the commit
> message.

Agreed, if you want to have a note in the code itself (to avoid
mistakes re-adding them, I imagine), then I would say a short sentence
+ link is best.

Your link is a good one for an explanation, since it mentions
explicitly the UB. The reference's list [1] would be a good fit for
non-explanation purposes -- it mentions explicitly `!` (and
`Infallible` is supposed to eventually be an alias as far as I know).

In addition, while it is not important in this case (i.e. most likely
nobody is affected), it doesn't hurt to include an example that shows
the issue in general for this sort of patches, i.e. what kind of code
will be prevented from compiling, e.g.

    pr_info!("{}",
Box::<core::convert::Infallible>::init(kernel::init::zeroed())?);

In any case, even v1 looks good to me -- thanks!

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html

Cheers,
Miguel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ