linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] rust: debugfs: Bind DebugFS directory creation

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: <aBYE0rPmS6L6PJbs@polis>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 13:58:10 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>
Cc: 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>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] rust: debugfs: Bind DebugFS directory creation

On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 08:48:36AM -0700, Matthew Maurer wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:37 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 10:47:41PM +0000, Matthew Maurer wrote:
> > > +/// Owning handle to a DebugFS directory.
> > > +///
> > > +/// This directory will be cleaned up when it goes out of scope.
> > > +///
> > > +/// # Invariants
> > > +///
> > > +/// The wrapped pointer will always be `NULL`, an error, or an owned DebugFS `dentry`.
> > > +#[repr(transparent)]
> > > +pub struct Dir(#[cfg(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)] *mut bindings::dentry);
> >
> > Should probably use Opaque instead of a raw pointer.
> 
> Opaque usage is problematic here:

Yes, when I wrote this I was back at your v1 in my mind -- the raw pointer is
fine..