linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 2/6] rust: introduce module

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: <87ikkq648o.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 13:29:11 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
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>,  "Alice
 Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,  "Masahiro Yamada" <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
  "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@...nel.org>,  "Luis Chamberlain"
 <mcgrof@...nel.org>,  "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>,  "Nicolas
 Schier" <nicolas.schier@...ux.dev>,  "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
  "Adam Bratschi-Kaye" <ark.email@...il.com>,
  <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
  <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,  "Petr Pavlu" <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
  "Sami Tolvanen" <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,  "Daniel Gomez"
 <da.gomez@...sung.com>,  "Simona Vetter" <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>,  "Greg
 KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,  "Fiona Behrens" <me@...enk.dev>,
  "Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
  <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/6] rust: introduce module_param module

"Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org> writes:

> On Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 3:40 PM CEST, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> +/// A wrapper for kernel parameters.
>> +///
>> +/// This type is instantiated by the [`module!`] macro when module parameters are
>> +/// defined. You should never need to instantiate this type directly.
>> +///
>> +/// Note: This type is `pub` because it is used by module crates to access
>> +/// parameter values.
>> +#[repr(transparent)]
>> +pub struct ModuleParamAccess<T> {
>> +    data: core::cell::UnsafeCell<T>,
>> +}
>> +
>> +// SAFETY: We only create shared references to the contents of this container,
>> +// so if `T` is `Sync`, so is `ModuleParamAccess`.
>> +unsafe impl<T: Sync> Sync for ModuleParamAccess<T> {}
>> +
>> +impl<T> ModuleParamAccess<T> {
>> +    #[doc(hidden)]
>> +    pub const fn new(value: T) -> Self {
>> +        Self {
>> +            data: core::cell::UnsafeCell::new(value),
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /// Get a shared reference to the parameter value.
>> +    // Note: When sysfs access to parameters are enabled, we have to pass in a
>> +    // held lock guard here.
>> +    pub fn get(&self) -> &T {
>> +        // SAFETY: As we only support read only parameters with no sysfs
>> +        // exposure, the kernel will not touch the parameter data after module
>> +        // initialization.
>
> This should be a type invariant. But I'm having difficulty defining one
> that's actually correct: after parsing the parameter, this is written
> to, but when is that actually?

For built-in modules it is during kernel initialization. For loadable
modules, it during module load. No code from the module will execute
before parameters are set.

> Would we eventually execute other Rust
> code during that time? (for example when we allow custom parameter
> parsing)

I don't think we will need to synchronize because of custom parameter
parsing. Parameters are initialized sequentially. It is not a problem if
the custom parameter parsing code name other parameters, because they
are all initialized to valid values (as they are statics).

>
> This function also must never be `const` because of the following:
>
>     module! {
>         // ...
>         params: {
>             my_param: i64 {
>                 default: 0,
>                 description: "",
>             },
>         },
>     }
>
>     static BAD: &'static i64 = module_parameters::my_param.get();
>
> AFAIK, this static will be executed before loading module parameters and
> thus it makes writing to the parameter UB.

As I understand, the static will be initialized by a constant expression
evaluated at compile time. I am not sure what happens when this is
evaluated in const context:

    pub fn get(&self) -> &T {
        // SAFETY: As we only support read only parameters with no sysfs
        // exposure, the kernel will not touch the parameter data after module
        // initialization.
        unsafe { &*self.data.get() }
    }

Why would that not be OK? I would assume the compiler builds a dependency graph
when initializing statics?


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg