[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZkNjVbqR6gYqg4YZ@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 06:12:53 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mara Bos <m-ou.se@...u.se>, Amanieu d'Antras <amanieu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: time: Use wrapping_sub() for Ktime::sub()
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 05:04:43PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 2:14 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > In principle ktime_sub() should not overflow for regular use cases.
> >
> > If the binder example overflows the substraction, then something is
> > seriously wrong. Though in that case as it's only for debug purposes
> > panicing would be totally counter productive. A warning might be
> > appropriate though.
>
> Thanks for the clarification Thomas.
>
> Alice and I pinged about this in the RustNL Unconf, i.e. about having
> a way to customize what happens on integer overflow (and, in general,
> other panics too), which I had in:
>
> https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/354
>
> e.g. like UBSan that allows a "report and continue" option.
>
> We chatted with Mara and Amanieu, who were receptive. In particular,
> Mara posted right away:
>
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3632
>
> as a possible first step to eventually have that ability, mentioning
> Rust for Linux as a user.
>
> If we get the ability to customize those, then this could simply be a
> normal arithmetic operation, i.e. like any other. That is, considered
> to be a bug if it overflows.
>
That is nice to have, thank you guys!
> Meanwhile, one alternative is going with Boqun's approach, but I would
> just use the standard operator (i.e. what we do elsewhere) and try to
> get the customization happen as soon as possible since we will need it
> for everything else (plus we avoid to make the code uglier with
> changes that we will need to revert anyway; and it also allows us to
> easily test any new customization feature from the compiler/library).
>
However, I must point out that it needs more than a customized panic
handler to work: we also need to change the code generation (or adding
a different flag similar to -Coverflow-checks), because the current code
generation is Rust panic when overflow happens, which means the
subsequent code is unreachable.
Regards,
Boqun
> Cheers,
> Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists