linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/26] rust: alloc: implement `Allocator` for `Kmalloc`

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: <ZrzU3pkwJN4_jkig@cassiopeiae>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:01:34 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, ojeda@...nel.org,
	alex.gaynor@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
	gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, a.hindborg@...sung.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, daniel.almeida@...labora.com,
	faith.ekstrand@...labora.com, boris.brezillon@...labora.com,
	lina@...hilina.net, mcanal@...lia.com, zhiw@...dia.com,
	cjia@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, airlied@...hat.com,
	ajanulgu@...hat.com, lyude@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/26] rust: alloc: implement `Allocator` for `Kmalloc`

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 03:28:10PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 14.08.24 17:19, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:03:21PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 4:00 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If we keep them, we'd consequently also need to add them for vrealloc() and
> >>> kvrealloc(). But again, they don't do anything for us, and hence are more
> >>> misleading than helpful IMO.
> >>
> >> In general, they could do something (e.g. `noreturn`), perhaps in the future.
> > 
> > Indeed, and I think once they're honored we should add them again.
> 
> That sounds like it will be a lot of work, going through every function
> and checking if it has the given attribute. Especially when the
> attributes are enabled one by one. I think we should keep them (and of
> course introduce them on new functions).

I don't think it's gonna be a lot of work, if they're honored one day, which we
don't know, do we?

Since it seems that everyone else prefers to have those attributes, I'll keep /
add them accordingly.

However, I think we should at least keep a comment in rust/helpers.c that
documents which attributes are honored by bindgen and which aren't. For now,
the comment should probably say that non of them are honored?

> 
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
> 
> > It's just that I think as long as compiler attributes aren't honored, we should
> > not have them in the first place to avoid confusion about whether they do or do
> > not have any effect.
>