linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] doc: rust: safety standard: add examples

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: <B0E3D539-2D29-4BB4-9CB7-98672F590A57@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:36:31 -0300
From: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 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>,
 Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] doc: rust: safety standard: add examples

Sorry, ended up replying to this using my personal email.

Sending it again.

—————

Hi Benno,

> On 17 Jul 2024, at 19:12, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
> 
> Add examples of good and bad safety documentation.
> 
> There aren't many examples at the moment, as I hope to add more during
> discussions, since coming up with examples on my own is very difficult.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
> ---
> .../rust/safety-standard/examples.rst         | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
> Documentation/rust/safety-standard/index.rst  | 23 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/rust/safety-standard/examples.rst
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/rust/safety-standard/examples.rst b/Documentation/rust/safety-standard/examples.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..d66ef3f8954a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/rust/safety-standard/examples.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +.. highlight:: rust
> +
> +Examples
> +========
> +
> +Unsound APIs
> +------------
> +
> +Simple Unsound Function
> +***********************
> +::
> +
> +    struct Data {
> +        a: usize,
> +    }
> +
> +    fn access_a(data: *mut Data) -> usize {
> +        unsafe { (*data).a }
> +    }
> +
> +One would normally call this function as follows, which does not trigger UB::
> +
> +    fn main() {
> +        let mut d = Data { a: 42 };
> +        println!("{}", access_a(&mut d));
> +    }
> +
> +However, a caller could also call it like this, which triggers UB using only safe code::
> +
> +    fn main() {
> +        println!("{}", access_a(core::ptr::null_mut()));
> +    }
> +
> +And this would result in a dereference of a null pointer.
> +
> +
> +Sound ``unsafe`` Code
> +---------------------
> +
> +The Importance of the API Boundary
> +**********************************
> +
> +Is the following API sound?::
> +
> +    fn foo(r: &mut u32) {
> +        let ptr: *mut u32 = r;
> +        let val;
> +        unsafe {
> +            val = *ptr;
> +            *ptr = 0;
> +        }
> +    }
> +
> +It better be sound, but one could argue that it is unsound, since one could replace the ptr
> +initialization by ``ptr = core::ptr::null_mut()``::
> +
> +    fn foo(r: &mut u32) {
> +        let ptr: *mut u32 = core::ptr::null_mut();
> +        let val;
> +        unsafe {
> +            val = *ptr;
> +            *ptr = 0;
> +        }
> +    }
> +
> +But this modification is not allowed, since it goes beyond the API boundary of ``foo``. This way
> +any ``unsafe`` code that relies on surrounding safe code could be shown to be unsound. Instead one
> +should only consider safe code using the API, in this case, there is no way to make the code
> +incorrect, since a reference is always valid to dereference during its lifetime.

I find this paragraph a bit confusing. Maybe this can be clarified a bit further?


— Daniel