netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/5] rust: core abstractions for network PHY drivers

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]

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:37:46 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, boqun.feng@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com, greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/5] rust: core abstractions for network PHY drivers

On 19.10.23 17:32, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> You can just do this (I omitted the `::kernel::` prefix for
>> readability, if you add this in the macro, please include it):
>>
>>       // CAST: `DriverVTable` is `repr(transparent)` and wrapping `bindings::phy_driver`.
>>       let ptr = drv.as_mut_ptr().cast::<bindings::phy_driver>();
>>       let len = drv.len().try_into()?;
>>       // SAFETY: ...
>>       to_result(unsafe { bindings::phy_drivers_register(ptr, len, module.0) })?;
>>
>>>                   })?;
> 
> The above solves DriverVTable.0 but still the macro can't access to
> kernel::ThisModule.0. I got the following error:

I think we could just provide an `as_ptr` getter function
for `ThisModule`. But need to check with the others.

[...]

>>>> I suppose that it would be ok to call the register function multiple
>>>> times, since it only is on module startup/shutdown and it is not
>>>> performance critical.
>>>
>>> I think that we can use the current implantation using Reservation
>>> struct until someone requests manual creation. I doubt that we will
>>> need to support such.
>>
>> I would like to remove the mutable static variable and simplify
>> the macro.
> 
> It's worse than having public unsafe function (phy_drivers_unregister)?

Why would that function have to be public?

-- 
Cheers,
Benno