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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cfd4841d-040b-4101-88be-3eb42f2139ab@proton.me>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 14:33:55 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
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

On 08.08.24 15:10, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> Hi Benno,
> 
>>
>> I will try to rephrase this, tell me if it helps. When checking if an
>> API is sound, you are not allowed to change the code behind the API.
>> That is because `unsafe` code often relies on the surrounding safe code
>> to work properly. In the example above, safe code ensures that the raw
>> pointer `ptr` is valid. This is OK (and also very necessary), since we
>> expect people to be *aware* of the `unsafe` block and thus more
>> carefully review the changes in surrounding safe code. If you have safe
>> code that only interfaces with other safe code you don't need to be this
>> careful.
>>
>> Note that this heavily depends on where you put the API boundary. In our
>> case, we generally have this boundary: driver code <-> `kernel` crate.
>> But if your driver requires very specific helper code that does not fit
>> into the `kernel` crate, then you might also have an API boundary there.
>>
>> If it doesn't help, then it would great to get some more detailed
>> questions which part(s) you need help with.
>>
>> ---
>> Cheers,
>> Benno
>>
>>
> 
> Yes, I think this is more clear, but note that this explanation is more thorough
> than the actual example.
> 
> My point being, maybe you should take some of what you just wrote and put it
> into the actual docs.

Yeah that was part of my plan :)

Thanks for taking a look.

---
Cheers,
Benno