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: <20231212.193632.117477874141101308.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:36:32 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: aliceryhl@...gle.com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, 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, 12 Dec 2023 10:17:40 +0100
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for the clarification. Then I'll fold this in the patchset.