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: <c5ba329d-ea62-4a8c-97df-594eb8c6b3af@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:36:09 +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 1:21 PM, Benno Lossin wrote:
> 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?

We might also write them, but currently we only write them through FFI calls on
the C side.