linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] rust: iov: add iov_iter abstractions for ITER

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <87y0ry80or.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2025 13:31:16 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn
 Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Alice
 Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] rust: iov: add iov_iter abstractions for ITER_DEST

"Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com> writes:

> This adds abstractions for the iov_iter type in the case where
> data_source is ITER_DEST. This will make Rust implementations of
> fops->read_iter possible.
>
> This series only has support for using existing IO vectors created by C
> code. Additional abstractions will be needed to support the creation of
> IO vectors in Rust code.
>
> These abstractions make the assumption that `struct iov_iter` does not
> have internal self-references, which implies that it is valid to move it
> between different local variables.
>
> This patch adds an IovIterDest struct that is very similar to the
> IovIterSource from the previous patch. However, as the methods on the
> two structs have very little overlap (just getting the length and
> advance/revert), I do not think it is worth it to try and deduplicate
> this logic.

Is it not like 50% duplication? `as_raw`, `len`, `is_empty`, `advance`,
`revert`. It looks like it makes sense to me, but 🤷 We can always do it
later.

Reviewed-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg