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]

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:17:40 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: boqun.feng@...il.com, 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
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] rust: net: phy: Correct the safety comment for
 impl Sync

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:55 AM FUJITA Tomonori
<fujita.tomonori@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

To clarify, the modified safety comment is also okay with me.

Alice