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: <20231029.010905.2203628525080155252.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 01:09:05 +0900 (JST) From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com> To: andrew@...n.ch Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me, boqun.feng@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/5] rust: core abstractions for network PHY drivers On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:53:30 +0200 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote: >> > We need to be careful here, since doing this creates a reference >> > `&bindings::phy_device` which asserts that it is immutable. That is not >> > the case, since the C side might change it at any point (this is the >> > reason we wrap things in `Opaque`, since that allows mutatation even >> > through sharde references). >> >> You meant that the C code might modify it independently anytime, not >> the C code called the Rust abstractions might modify it, right? > > The whole locking model is base around that not happening. Things > should only change with the lock held. I you make a call into the C > side, then yes, it can and will change it. So you should not cache a > value over a C call. Yeah, I understand that. But if I understand Benno correctly, from Rust perspective, such might happen.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists