linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] rust: alloc: add Vec::remove

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aBx-UTG2ZGErdSHv@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 09:50:09 +0000
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] rust: alloc: add Vec::remove

On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 01:44:30PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Fri May 2, 2025 at 3:19 PM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > This is needed by Rust Binder in the range allocator, and by upcoming
> > GPU drivers during firmware initialization.
> >
> > Panics in the kernel are best avoided when possible, so an error is
> > returned if the index is out of bounds. An error type is used rather
> > than just returning Option<T> to let callers handle errors with ?.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
> 
> One follow-up comment below. With the `# Panics` section removed:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>

Thanks!

> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec/errors.rs b/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec/errors.rs
> > index 84c96ec5007ddc676283cbce07f4d670c3873c1e..06fe696e8bc6612a5e6aa2f6c28b685033acfa2f 100644
> > --- a/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec/errors.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/alloc/kvec/errors.rs
> > @@ -21,3 +21,18 @@ fn from(_: PushError<T>) -> Error {
> >          EINVAL
> >      }
> >  }
> > +
> > +/// Error type for [`Vec::remove`].
> > +pub struct RemoveError;
> 
> Would it make sense as a follow-up to store the index that was accessed?

Usually I think we would only store the information that the caller
doesn't already know?

Alice