linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: Update PCI binding safety comments and add inline compiler hint

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: <DB9IQAU4WPSP.XZL4ZDPT59KU@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 22:46:13 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.com>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, "Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.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>, "Andreas
 Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 "John Hubbard" <jhubbard@...dia.com>, "Alexandre Courbot"
 <acourbot@...dia.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: Update PCI binding safety comments and add
 inline compiler hint

On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 9:33 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 8:30 PM CEST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 5:02 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>> On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 10:01 AM CEST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>>>> On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 4:24 AM CEST, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
>>>>> index 8435f8132e38..5c35a66a5251 100644
>>>>> --- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
>>>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
>>>>> @@ -371,14 +371,18 @@ fn as_raw(&self) -> *mut bindings::pci_dev {
>>>>>  
>>>>>  impl Device {
>>>>>      /// Returns the PCI vendor ID.
>>>>> +    #[inline]
>>>>>      pub fn vendor_id(&self) -> u16 {
>>>>> -        // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
>>>>> +        // SAFETY: by its type invariant `self.as_raw` is always a valid pointer to a
>>>>
>>>> s/by its type invariant/by the type invariants of `Self`,/
>>>> s/always//
>>>>
>>>> Also, which invariant does this refer to? The only one that I can see
>>>> is:
>>>>
>>>>     /// A [`Device`] instance represents a valid `struct device` created by the C portion of the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> And this doesn't say anything about the validity of `self.as_raw()`...
>>>
>>> Hm...why not? If an instance of Self always represents a valid struct pci_dev,
>>> then consequently self.as_raw() can only be a valid pointer to a struct pci_dev,
>>> no?
>>
>> While it's true, you need to look into the implementation of `as_raw`.
>> It could very well return a null pointer...
>>
>> This is where we can use a `Guarantee` on that function. But since it's
>> not shorter than `.0.get()`, I would just remove it.
>
> We have 15 to 20 as_raw() methods of this kind in the tree. If this really needs
> a `Guarantee` to be clean, we should probably fix it up in a treewide change.
>
> as_raw() is a common pattern and everyone knows what it does, `.0.get()` seems
> much less obvious.

Yeah I guess then we need to do the treewide change... I don't have the
bandwidth for that, we can probably make this a good-first-issue.

---
Cheers,
Benno