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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DBIJM4PTRHAS.3KXPG1MHNS8K0@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:21:47 +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 Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 1:02 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> 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.

By "access fields" you mean read-only?

---
Cheers,
Benno