linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: sync: fix incorrect Sync bounds for LockedBy

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: <CAH5fLggoz5gdgOpEiXu7u9hPXjLLeSv9An6jaq0am0-dG7+ohw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:11:57 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: sync: fix incorrect Sync bounds for LockedBy

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 3:49 PM Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 23:28:37 -0700
> Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. I think it makes more sense to make `access()` requires `where T:
> > Sync` instead of the current fix? I.e. I propose we do:
> >
> >       impl<T, U> LockedBy<T, U> {
> >           pub fn access<'a>(&'a self, owner: &'a U) -> &'a T
> >           where T: Sync {
> >               ...
> >           }
> >       }
> >
> > The current fix in this patch disallows the case where a user has a
> > `Foo: !Sync`, but want to have multiple `&LockedBy<Foo, X>` in different
> > threads (they would use `access_mut()` to gain unique accesses), which
> > seems to me is a valid use case.
> >
> > The where-clause fix disallows the case where a user has a `Foo: !Sync`,
> > a `&LockedBy<Foo, X>` and a `&X`, and is trying to get a `&Foo` with
> > `access()`, this doesn't seems to be a common usage, but maybe I'm
> > missing something?
>
> +1 on this. Our `LockedBy` type only works with `Lock` -- which
> provides mutual exclusion rather than `RwLock`-like semantics, so I
> think it should be perfectly valid for people to want to use `LockedBy`
> for `Send + !Sync` types and only use `access_mut`. So placing `Sync`
> bound on `access` sounds better.

I will add the `where` bound to `access`.

> There's even a way to not requiring `Sync` bound at all, which is to
> ensure that the owner itself is a `!Sync` type:
>
>         impl<T, U> LockedBy<T, U> {
>             pub fn access<'a, B: Backend>(&'a self, owner: &'a Guard<U, B>) -> &'a T {
>                 ...
>             }
>         }
>
> Because there's no way for `Guard<U, B>` to be sent across threads, we
> can also deduce that all caller of `access` must be from a single
> thread and thus the `Sync` bound is unnecessary.

Isn't Guard Sync? Either way, it's inconvenient to make Guard part of
the interface. That prevents you from using it from within
`&self`/`&mut self` methods on the owner.

Alice