linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] rust: types: Add Ownable/Owned types

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: <87zfe68uh4.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:42:47 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Oliver Mangold" <oliver.mangold@...me>
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>,  "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
  "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>,  "Asahi Lina" <lina@...hilina.net>,
  <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] rust: types: Add Ownable/Owned types

"Oliver Mangold" <oliver.mangold@...me> writes:

> On 250502 1157, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> > +
>> > +impl<T: Ownable> Owned<T> {
>> > +    /// Creates a new instance of [`Owned`].
>> > +    ///
>> > +    /// It takes over ownership of the underlying object.
>> > +    ///
>> > +    /// # Safety
>> > +    ///
>> > +    /// Callers must ensure that the underlying object is acquired and can be considered owned by
>> > +    /// Rust.
>>
>>
>> This part "the underlying object is acquired" is unclear to me. How about:
>>
>>   Callers must ensure that *ownership of* the underlying object has been
>>   acquired. That is, the object can be considered owned by the caller.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, made me think about the phrasing, too. But the main point is, that the
> object must be considered to be owned by the `Owned<T>` after the function
> call, no?
>
> So maybe:
>
>    Callers must ensure that ownership of the underlying object can be
>    transfered to the `Owned<T>` and must consider it to be transfered
>    after the function call. This usually implies that the object
>    most not be accessed through `ptr` anymore.

Sounds good to me 👍


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg