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: <be42295e-63e1-4e2f-986f-aef962f531bd@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:02:48 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...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 7/22/25 12:57 PM, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 11:51 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> I think they're good, but we're pretty late in the cycle now. That should be
>> fine though, we can probably take them through the nova tree, or in the worst
>> case share a tag, if needed.
>>
>> Given that, it would probably be good to add the Guarantee section on as_raw(),
>> as proposed by Benno, right away.
>>
>> @Benno: Any proposal on what this section should say?
> 
> At a minimum I'd say "The returned pointer is valid.", but that doesn't
> really say for what it's valid... AFAIK you're mostly using this pointer
> to pass it to the C side, in that case, how about:

It is used for for FFI calls and to access fields of the underlying
struct pci_dev.

>      /// # Guarantees
>      ///
>      /// The returned pointer is valid for reads and writes from the C side for as long as `self` exists.
> 
> Maybe we need to change it a bit more, but let's just start with this.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ