netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH] rust: net: phy: Correct the safety comment for impl Sync

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: <20231212.085505.1804120029445582408.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:55:05 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: boqun.feng@...il.com
Cc: alice@...l.io, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
 andrew@...n.ch, tmgross@...ch.edu, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com,
 benno.lossin@...ton.me, wedsonaf@...il.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
 fujita.tomonori@...il.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] rust: net: phy: Correct the safety comment
 for impl Sync

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:22:54 -0800
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:50:02PM +0100, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> On 12/11/23 20:49, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> > The current safety comment for impl Sync for DriverVTable has two
>> > problem:
>> > 
>> > * the correctness is unclear, since all types impl Any[1], therefore all
>> >    types have a `&self` method (Any::type_id).
>> > 
>> > * it doesn't explain why useless of immutable references can ensure the
>> >    safety.
>> > 
>> > Fix this by rewritting the comment.
>> > 
>> > [1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/any/trait.Any.html
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
>> 
>> It's fine if you want to change it,
> 
> Does it mean you are OK with the new version in this patch? If so...
> 
>> but I think the current safety comment is good enough.
> 
> ... let's change it since the current version doesn't look good enough
> to me as I explained above (it's not wrong, but less straight-forward to
> me).

I'll leave this alone and wait for opinions from other reviewers since
you guys have different options. It's improvement so I don't need to
hurry.