linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] rust: add bitmap API.

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: <CAG48ez32BYaor4pWcG4+X6zqXgdskeC2UR3Kte_pp09-LeKMug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 22:36:52 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, 
	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>, 
	"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] rust: add bitmap API.

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:08 PM Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 9:01 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:24 PM Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > +    /// Set bit with index `index`, atomically.
> > > +    ///
> > > +    /// ATTENTION: The naming convention differs from C, where the corresponding
> > > +    /// function is called `set_bit`.
> > > +    ///
> > > +    /// # Safety
> > > +    ///
> > > +    /// This is a relaxed atomic operation (no implied memory barriers, no
> > > +    /// ordering guarantees). The caller must ensure that this is safe, as
> > > +    /// the compiler cannot prevent code with an exclusive reference from
> > > +    /// calling atomic operations.
> >
> > How can atomic operations through an exclusive reference be unsafe?
> > You can't have a data race between two atomic operations, and an
> > exclusive reference should anyway prevent any concurrency, right?
>
> The atomic operations take a &self (shared reference).
>
> The patch is missing the implementation of Sync for now. With that,
> one would get concurrent write access through shared references.
>
> The "unsafe" here should serve as reminder to argue why it is ok to
> not have any ordering guarantees.
>
> The last sentence is supposed to say: when you have a &mut bitmap, you
> can reborrow it as &bitmap, and then happily call this atomic op.
> Even though it is unnecessary.

But using an atomic op when you have a &mut reference is not a safety
issue, right? You wrote a comment about behavior with exclusive
references in the "# Safety" comment block. If that's not supposed to
be a safety problem, this should probably not be in the "# Safety"
section?