linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rust: sync: refactor static_lock

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: <CAH5fLgiOaZRki71X7oDPpz1OnNEbPgPLmcxbJXscdbDBhUy6=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 21:58:13 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rust: sync: refactor static_lock_class!() macro

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 6:20 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 05:01:39PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 4:36 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed Jul 23, 2025 at 1:49 PM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > >  impl LockClassKey {
> > > > +    /// Initializes a statically allocated lock class key.
> > > > +    ///
> > > > +    /// This is usually used indirectly through the [`static_lock_class!`] macro.
> > > > +    ///
> > > > +    /// # Safety
> > > > +    ///
> > > > +    /// The destructor must never run on the returned `LockClassKey`.
> > >
> > > I don't know how lockdep works, but Boqun mentioned in the other thread
> > > that it uses the address of static keys. But AFAIK there is no mechanism
> > > to differentiate them, so does lockdep just check the address and if it
>
> In lockdep, we use `static_obj()` to tell whether it's a static obj or a
> dynamic allocated one.

Oh, ok. In that case I will adjust the safety comment.

Alice