linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: sync: require `Sync` for `Backend::GuardState`

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: <ca2e865a-f0a2-488e-ab0b-53ef5c4e95b3@proton.me>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 10:06:18 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...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>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: sync: require `Sync` for `Backend::GuardState`

On 03.09.24 11:32, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 11:17 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>>
>> `Guard<T, B>` implements `Sync` when `T` is `Sync`. Since this does not
>> depend on `B`, creating a `Guard` that is `Sync`, but with `!Sync` state
>> is possible. This is a soundness issue, thus add the bounds to the
>> respective impls.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
> 
> Right now, a `&Guard<T, B>` has exactly the same powers as &T, as the
> only thing you can do on the guard with only a shared reference is
> deref to a &T. So the bounds are correct as they are, unless new APIs
> are added (which seems unlikely?). 

Right, but I thought it was strange not to require that. Since that
would be the default behavior of the `Sync` auto-trait. And the only
reason why we have to implement `Sync` is because we want it to be
`!Send` with the `PhantomData<*mut ()>`.

All of our locks currently use `()` as the guard state, so we don't lose
anything.

Maybe it might make sense to instead have a marker type that is `!Send`
but `Sync` that can be used here instead, since then we could avoid the
`unsafe impl Sync`.

> But the safety comment could certainly be improved.

That's why I stumbled on this :)

---
Cheers,
Benno