linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] doc: rust: create safety standard

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: <3bc99919-6658-43f2-986a-6d75c4e86ae1@proton.me>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 21:28:34 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, 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 1/5] doc: rust: create safety standard

On 24.07.24 23:20, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 10:32 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>>
>> There are also several clippy lints [1] that we could start using:
>> - missing_safety_doc
>> - multiple_unsafe_ops_per_block
>> - undocumented_unsafe_blocks
>> - unnecessary_safety_comment
>> - unnecessary_safety_doc
>>
>> I personally think we should enable all of them.
> 
> We briefly talked about it today -- others agreed on going ahead with
> something like the diff I sent the other day, so I will send a formal
> patch -- it has been a while since we wanted to do this (long enough
> that we were the ones requesting one of those lints, and it got
> implemented since then... :)

Perfect :)

> And we can keep the `TODO`s as "good first issue"s (I already updated
> some days ago our good first issue about it:
> https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/351).

That sounds like a good idea.

> We can also enable the others easily, most are essentially clean
> already anyway, so I will send that as well.

Sounds good.

> The only one that may be more "annoying" is
> `multiple_unsafe_ops_per_block`. On the other hand, it could in fact
> force people to think about every "bullet point" of the requirements
> (the lint highlights nicely the different operations).

Oh yeah, that might be annoying if we have

    unsafe {
        (*ptr).a = 0;
        (*ptr).b = 0;
    }

So it probably is better to leave that one disabled.

---
Cheers,
Benno