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: <CAH5fLghic7MZd-BO=Z-ostGLgWmBciQmZp9VjQpLGWskFK_gyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:35:36 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, 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>, 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 12:57 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org> 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:
>
>     /// # 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.
>
> (If you're also using the pointer from Rust, then we need to make
> changes)

Honestly I think this is a bit over the top. I wouldn't bother adding
a section like that to every single as_raw() method out there.

Alice

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ