linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] rust: list: add struct with prev/next pointers

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: <2500d66a-e54e-46d8-97cb-37fd9fc00c45@proton.me>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 15:57:16 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] rust: list: add struct with prev/next pointers

On 02.04.24 14:17, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> +/// Implemented by types where a [`ListArc<Self>`] can be inserted into a `List`.
> +///
> +/// # Safety
> +///
> +/// Implementers must ensure that they provide the guarantees documented on the three methods
> +/// below.
> +///
> +/// [`ListArc<Self>`]: ListArc
> +pub unsafe trait ListItem<const ID: u64 = 0>: ListArcSafe<ID> {
> +    /// Views the [`ListLinks`] for this value.
> +    ///
> +    /// # Guarantees
> +    ///
> +    /// * If there is a currently active call to `prepare_to_insert`, then this returns the same
> +    ///   pointer as the one returned by the currently active call to `prepare_to_insert`.

I was a bit confused by the term "active call to `prepare_to_insert`",
since I thought that the function would need to be executed at this
moment. I inferred from below that you mean by this that there has been
a `prepare_to_insert` call, but not yet a corresponding `post_remove`
call.
I did not yet find a better way to phrase this.

I like putting the guarantees on the functions very much.

-- 
Cheers,
Benno