linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lsm: rust: mark SecurityCtx methods inline

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH5fLgi6ZFBqtyUuGPbdST-tEzHJ=Wp1khDxQhO_h+bZiFVj8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 11:36:51 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	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>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lsm: rust: mark SecurityCtx methods inline

On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 11:55 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 10:30 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm seeing Binder generating calls to methods on SecurityCtx such as
> > from_secid and drop without inlining. Since these methods are really
> > simple wrappers around C functions, mark the methods to inline to avoid
> > generating these useless small functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  rust/kernel/security.rs | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> While this isn't specific to your patch, Casey's comment about "free"
> vs "release" is something to keep in mind when working on the LSM
> bindings; what happens inside the individual LSMs for a given LSM hook
> can vary quite a bit.
>
> I also saw a similar Rust patch where a commenter suggested using
> "impersonal facts" in the commit description and I believe that is a
> good idea here as well.
>
> Beyond those nitpicks, this looks okay to me based on my *extremely*
> limited Rust knowledge.  With the minor requested changes in place,
> would you prefer me to take this via the LSM tree, or would you prefer
> it to go up to Linus via a more Rust-y tree?

It would be great if you could take it, thanks!

Regarding the other patch for "Credential", is your tree also the
correct place for that? It's a bit unclear to me which tree maintains
credentials.

Alice