linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: alloc: use `spare_capacity

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

Message-ID: <D8IQ5BDTLCLZ.1UBNYUXLK12X0@proton.me>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:41:08 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>, 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>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: alloc: use `spare_capacity_mut` to reduce unsafe

On Mon Mar 17, 2025 at 6:30 PM CET, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 05:22:15PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Mon Mar 17, 2025 at 6:09 PM CET, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:39:05AM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:34 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon Mar 17, 2025 at 12:42 PM CET, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>> >> > > Use `spare_capacity_mut` in the implementation of `push` to reduce the
>> >> > > use of `unsafe`. Both methods were added in commit 2aac4cd7dae3 ("rust:
>> >> > > alloc: implement kernel `Vec` type").
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
>> >> > > ---
>> >> > >  rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs | 11 ++---------
>> >> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > diff --git a/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs b/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs
>> >> > > index ae9d072741ce..d2bc3d02179e 100644
>> >> > > --- a/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs
>> >> > > +++ b/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec.rs
>> >> > > @@ -285,15 +285,8 @@ pub fn spare_capacity_mut(&mut self) -> &mut [MaybeUninit<T>] {
>> >> > >      pub fn push(&mut self, v: T, flags: Flags) -> Result<(), AllocError> {
>> >> > >          self.reserve(1, flags)?;
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -        // SAFETY:
>> >> > > -        // - `self.len` is smaller than `self.capacity` and hence, the resulting pointer is
>> >> > > -        //   guaranteed to be part of the same allocated object.
>> >> > > -        // - `self.len` can not overflow `isize`.
>> >> > > -        let ptr = unsafe { self.as_mut_ptr().add(self.len) };
>> >> > > -
>> >> > > -        // SAFETY:
>> >> > > -        // - `ptr` is properly aligned and valid for writes.
>> >> > > -        unsafe { core::ptr::write(ptr, v) };
>> >> > > +        // The call to `reserve` was successful so the spare capacity is at least 1.
>> >> > > +        self.spare_capacity_mut()[0].write(v);
>> >> >
>> >> > I think the code uses unsafe to avoid a bounds check, but I'm not 100%
>> >> > sure. Danilo might remember more info.
>> >
>> > Yes, that was the justification to use unsafe calls instead.
>> >
>> > (This may also justify keeping dec_len() unsafe, since otherwise it would
>> > introduce an additional boundary check for pop().)
>> 
>> If we use saturating_sub then we don't need a bounds check (at least on
>> non-debug builds), right? 
>
> 	fn dec_len(&mut self, count: usize) -> &mut [T] {
> 	    self.len = self.len.saturating_sub(count);
>
> 	    // Potentially broken, since maybe `count > self.len`, hence need an
> 	    // additional check.
> 	    unsafe { slice::from_raw_parts_mut(self.as_mut_ptr().add(self.len), count) }
> 	}

Ah sorry, in my mental model the function returned `()`. Do we need the
return value?

---
Cheers,
Benno