linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] rust: implement wrapper for acpi

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: <510f51f0-64b5-48b5-b8d6-42629517b6ef@foxido.dev>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 13:30:35 +0300
From: Gladyshev Ilya <foxido@...ido.dev>
To: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>
Cc: "foxido @ foxido . dev-cc= Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
 Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>, Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>,
 platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rust: implement wrapper for acpi_object

On 1/8/26 23:06, Gary Guo wrote:
> On Thu Jan 8, 2026 at 5:11 PM GMT, Gladyshev Ilya wrote:
>> On 1/8/26 16:21, Gary Guo wrote:
>>> On Wed,  7 Jan 2026 23:35:32 +0300
>>> Gladyshev Ilya <foxido@...ido.dev> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ACPI Object is represented via union on C-side. On Rust side, this union
>>>> is transparently wrapped for each ACPI Type, with individual methods and
>>>> Defer implementation to represented type (integer, string, buffer, etc).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gladyshev Ilya <foxido@...ido.dev>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Gladyshev,
>>>
>>> I've checked the `acpi_object` implementation on the C side and it appears
>>> that the buffer is not owned by the object (however managed externally,
>>> could either be resting in ACPI tables directly or be allocated).
>> Hm, I looked through ACPI_FREE() call sites and acpi_evaluate_object()
>> implementation, and it seems to me that the acpi_object's lifetime is
>> the same as its internal buffer.
> 
> No, it's not the same. acpi_object's lifetime needs to be shorter than
> the internal buffer.

Okay, I agree than) Will fix in next revision