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: <87frffvvuc.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 10:30:03 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: "Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,  "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 Tue Jul 1, 2025 at 6:27 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:43 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ultimately this is something for Miguel to decide.
>>
>> Only if you all cannot get to an agreement ;)
>
> :)
>
>> If Andreas wants to have it already added, then I would say just mark
>> it `unsafe` as Benno recommends (possibly with an overbearing
>> precondition), given it has proven subtle/forgettable enough and that,
>> if I understand correctly, it would actually become unsafe if someone
>> "just" added "reasonably-looking code" elsewhere.
>
> Yeah, if we added code that ran at the same time as the parameter
> parsing (such as custom parameter parsing or a way to start a "thread"
> before the parsing is completed) it would be a problem.

Guys, we are not going to accidentally add this. I do not think this is
a valid concern.

>
>> That way we have an incentive to make it safe later on and, more
>> importantly, to think again about it when such a patch lands,
>> justifying it properly. And it could plausibly protect out-of-tree
>> users, too.
>>
>> This is all assuming that we will not have many users of this added
>> right away (in a cycle or two), i.e. assuming it will be easy to
>> change callers later on (if only to remove the `unsafe {}`).
>
> Yeah we would add internal synchronization and could keep the API the
> same (except removing unsafe of course).

That is true. But I am not going to add an unsafe block to a driver just
to read module parameters. If we cannot reach agreement on merging this
with the `copy` access method, I would rather wait on a locking version.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg