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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20231020.065103.1042445600809743171.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com> 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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists