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: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 06:51:03 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: benno.lossin@...ton.me
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, 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 Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:37:46 +0000
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:

> 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.
> 

ThisModule.0 is *mut bindings::module. Drivers should not use
bindings?


>>>>> 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?

If we don't make ThisModule.0 public, phy_drivers_unregister has to be
public.