linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] rust: time: Add wrapper for fsleep function

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: <20241031.173106.139587822701597209.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:31:06 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
 anna-maria@...utronix.de, frederic@...nel.org, jstultz@...gle.com,
 sboyd@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com,
 tmgross@...ch.edu, ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
 gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
 a.hindborg@...sung.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] rust: time: Add wrapper for fsleep function

On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:55:50 +0100
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 29 2024 at 08:30, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 21:38:41 -0700
>> Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>>> That also works for me, but an immediate question is: do we put
>>> #[must_use] on `fsleep()` to enforce the use of the return value? If
>>> yes, then the normal users would need to explicitly ignore the return
>>> value:
>>> 
>>> 	let _ = fsleep(1sec);
>>> 
>>> The "let _ =" would be a bit annoying for every user that just uses a
>>> constant duration.
>>
>> Yeah, but I don't think that we have enough of an excuse here to break
>> the rule "Do not crash the kernel".
>>
>> Another possible option is to convert an invalid argument to a safe
>> value (e.g., the maximum), possibly with WARN_ON_ONCE().
> 
> That makes sense.

Thanks! I'll do the conversion in the next version.