linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 03/16] rust: cpu: Add from

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: <CAH5fLghwAQsriWru-hFs+4pcvmpzZRj7GNC190RL7vi6p9J7Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:10:05 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	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>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 03/16] rust: cpu: Add from_cpu()

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 8:54 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 12:50:50PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 14-01-25, 19:44, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > +pub fn from_cpu(cpu: u32) -> Result<&'static Device> {
> > > > +    // SAFETY: The pointer returned by `get_cpu_device()`, if not `NULL`, is a valid pointer to
> > > > +    // a `struct device` and is never freed by the C code.
> > >
> > > I thought it was pointed out that it could be freed when a cpu was
> > > hot-unplugged?  Or is that a different device in the cpu code?  We seem
> > > to have 2 of them and it's not obvious which is which :(
> >
> > I did reply [1] to that earlier. The CPU can get unregistered but the
> > memory for the device is never freed (it is part of struct cpu). Some
> > calls on the CPU device may fail later on (if called for an unregisted
> > dev), but should never crash the kernel.
>
> Ah, but that's not really something that SAFETY should override, right?
>
> Yes, you know your implementation of this will stop using the pointer in
> the hotplug callback before it goes away but that's not documented here.
> And having the device "fail" afterward isn't really ok either as you are
> relying on the driver core to always check for this and I'm not so sure
> that it always does on all codepaths.
>
> But, I'm ok with this for now, as you are just copying the bad C model
> at the moment, but it really feels like a huge foot-gun waiting to go
> off.  Any way to put some more documentation here as in "use this at
> your own risk!"?

On the C side, how do you normally prevent uses of the device after it
became invalid?

Alice