netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/6] rust: Add read_poll

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: <ZwG8H7u3ddYH6gRx@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 15:22:23 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, hkallweit1@...il.com,
	tmgross@...ch.edu, ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
	gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
	a.hindborg@...sung.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
	anna-maria@...utronix.de, frederic@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/6] rust: Add read_poll_timeout function

On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 08:32:01PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > might_sleep() is called via a wrapper so the __FILE__ and __LINE__
> > debug info with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP enabled isn't what we
> > expect; the wrapper instead of the caller.
> 
> So not very useful. All we know is that somewhere in Rust something is
> sleeping in atomic context. Is it possible to do better? Does __FILE__
> and __LINE__ exist in Rust?
> 

Sure, you can use: 

	https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/macro.line.html

> > +    if sleep {
> > +        // SAFETY: FFI call.
> > +        unsafe { bindings::might_sleep() }
> > +    }
> 
> What is actually unsafe about might_sleep()? It is a void foo(void)

Every extern "C" function is by default unsafe, because C doesn't have
the concept of safe/unsafe. If you want to avoid unsafe, you could
introduce a Rust's might_sleep() which calls into
`bindings::might_sleep()`:

	pub fn might_sleep() {
	    // SAFETY: ??
	    unsafe { bindings::might_sleep() }
	}

however, if you call a might_sleep() in a preemption disabled context
when CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=n and PREEMPT=VOLUNTERY, it could means
an unexpected RCU quiescent state, which results an early RCU grace
period, and that may mean a use-after-free. So it's not that safe as you
may expected.

Regards,
Boqun

> function, so takes no parameters, returns no results. It cannot affect
> anything which Rust is managing.
> 
> > +        // SAFETY: FFI call.
> > +        unsafe { bindings::cpu_relax() }
> 
> Same here.
> 
> 	Andrew
>