linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] rust: alloc: satisfy POSIX alignment requirement

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: <CAJ-ks9=-kP5jBGQ_A88VPU_HW9VkF=OCqcGufqrJobhJu8dhww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:44:45 -0500
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, DJ Delorie <dj@...hat.com>, 
	Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>, Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] rust: alloc: satisfy POSIX alignment requirement

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:38:48PM +0000, Gary Guo wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:40:37 +0100
> > Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:43:02AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs b/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> > > > index e3240d16040b..17a475380253 100644
> > > > --- a/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> > > > +++ b/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> > > > @@ -62,6 +62,26 @@ unsafe fn realloc(
> > > >              ));
> > > >          }
> > > >
> > > > +        // ISO C (ISO/IEC 9899:2011) defines `aligned_alloc`:
> > > > +        //
> > > > +        // > The value of alignment shall be a valid alignment supported by the implementation
> > > > +        // [...].
> > > > +        //
> > > > +        // As an example of the "supported by the implementation" requirement, POSIX.1-2001 (IEEE
> > > > +        // 1003.1-2001) defines `posix_memalign`:
> > > > +        //
> > > > +        // > The value of alignment shall be a power of two multiple of sizeof (void *).
> > > > +        //
> > > > +        // and POSIX-based implementations of `aligned_alloc` inherit this requirement. At the time
> > > > +        // of writing, this is known to be the case on macOS (but not in glibc).
> > > > +        //
> > > > +        // Satisfy the stricter requirement to avoid spurious test failures on some platforms.
> > > > +        let min_align = core::mem::size_of::<*const crate::ffi::c_void>();
> > > > +        let layout = layout.align_to(min_align).unwrap_or_else(|_err| {
> > > > +            crate::build_error!("invalid alignment")
> > >
> > > That's not what I thought this patch will look like. I thought you'll directly
> > > follow Gary's proposal, which is why I said you can keep the ACK.
> > >
> > > build_error!() doesn't work here, there is no guarantee that this can be
> > > evaluated at compile time.
> >
> > `align_to` will only fail if `min_align` is not a valid alignment (i.e.
> > not power of two), which the compiler should be easy to notice that the
> > size of pointer is indeed power of 2.
>
> From the documentation of align_to():
>
> "Returns an error if the combination of self.size() and the given align violates
> the conditions listed in Layout::from_size_align."
>
> Formally self.size() may still be unknown at compile time.
>
> Do I miss anything?

Formally, I agree. I tried testing (in allocator_test.rs):

#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
    use super::*;

    #[test]
    fn test_allocate() {
        #[inline(never)]
        fn non_const_usize() -> usize {
            let x = 0;
            &x as *const _ as usize
        }

        let layout = Layout::array::<bool>(non_const_usize()).unwrap();
        let ptr = Cmalloc::alloc(layout, GFP_KERNEL).unwrap();
        let ptr = ptr.cast();
        // SAFETY:
        // - `ptr` was previously allocated with `Cmalloc`.
        // - `layout` is equal to the `Layout´ `ptr` was allocated with.
        unsafe { Cmalloc::free(ptr, layout) };
    }
}

and it compiled (and passed).