linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] implement ww_mutex abstraction for the Rust tree

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: <aFnNK1zE_IvLKsaa@tardis.local>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:54:51 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Onur <work@...rozkan.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
	lossin@...nel.org, a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
	tmgross@...ch.edu, dakr@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com,
	felipe_life@...e.com, daniel@...lak.dev, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] implement ww_mutex abstraction for the Rust tree

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 09:17:40PM +0300, Onur wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +    /// Checks if the mutex is currently locked.
> > > +    pub fn is_locked(&self) -> bool {
> > 
> > Did I miss a reply from you regarding:
> > 
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/aFReIdlPPg4MmaYX@tardis.local/
> > 
> > no public is_lock() please. Do an assert_is_locked() instead. We need
> > to avoid users from abusing this.
> 
> Sorry, I missed that. Perhaps, using `#[cfg(CONFIG_KUNIT)]` e.g.,:
> 

As long as it's not `pub`, it's fine. `#[cfg(CONFIG_KUNIT)]` is not
needed.

>     /// Checks if the mutex is currently locked.

Please mention that the function is only for internal testing, and
cannot be used to check whether another task has acquired an lock or
not.

Thanks!

Regards,
Boqun

>     #[cfg(CONFIG_KUNIT)]
>     fn is_locked(&self) -> bool {
>         // SAFETY: The mutex is pinned and valid.
>         unsafe { bindings::ww_mutex_is_locked(self.mutex.get()) }
>     }
> 
> would be better? What do you think?
[..]