linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] rust_binder: use bitmap for allocation of handles

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: <aRWhakNj7_DGZDYC@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 09:14:18 +0000
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	"Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@...roid.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>, 
	Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, 
	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 v5 6/6] rust_binder: use bitmap for allocation of handles

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 09:32:10AM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 12:35 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Although we should never hit this codepath in real code, I don't think
> > we need to kill the kernel. We can treat the r/b tree as source of truth
> > and adjust the bitmap when mismathces are detected.
> >
> > I could add a kernel warning, though. That shouldn't kill an Android
> > device.
> 
> I guess you mean warning in the sense of `pr_warn!` instead of
> `warn_on!`, right?

I was thinking of warn_on!. There is already a pr_err call.

> If so, could you please add as well a `debug_assert!(false)` on that path?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I will create a first issue for the combination, since I hope we can
> use it more and more.
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel