netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 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]

Message-ID: <77c78010-781e-4eb4-a7ba-3e9f9a07bf67@proton.me>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 22:50:45 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, 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 10/28/23 00:21, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 09:19:38PM +0000, Benno Lossin 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).
>>
>> I did not notice this before, but this means we cannot use the `link`
>> function from bindgen, since that takes `&self`. We would need a
>> function that takes `*const Self` instead.
>>
> 
> Hmm... but does it mean even `set_speed()` has the similar issue?
> 
> 	let phydev: *mut phy_device = self.0.get();
> 	unsafe { (*phydev).speed = ...; }

No that should be fine, take a look at the MIR output of the following 
code [1]:

    struct Foo {
        a: usize,
        b: usize,
    }
    
    fn foo(ptr: *mut Foo) {
        unsafe { (*ptr).b = 0; }
    }
    
    fn bar(ptr: *mut Foo) {
        unsafe { (&mut *ptr).b = 0; }
    }

Aside from some alignment checking, foo's MIR looks like this:

    bb1: {
        ((*_1).1: usize) = const 0_usize;
        return;
    }

And bar's MIR like this:

    bb1: {
        _2 = &mut (*_1);
        ((*_2).1: usize) = const 0_usize;
        return;
    }

[1]: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=f7c4d87bf29a64af0acc09ff75d3716d

So I think that is fine, but maybe Gary has something else to say about it.

> The `(*phydev)` creates a `&mut` IIUC. So we need the following maybe?
> 
> 	let phydev: *mut phy_device = self.0.get();
> 	unsafe { *addr_mut_of!((*phydev).speed) = ...; }
> 
> because at least from phylib core guarantee, we know no one accessing
> `speed` in the same time. However, yes, bit fields are tricky...

-- 
Cheers,
Benno