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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZwPyVHH2UbVeJBs5@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 07:38:12 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	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, 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 Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 07:19:56AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 04:16:46PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 4:14 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 04:08:48PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 3:48 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 05:28:28AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 04:45:21PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > > However, this is actually a special case: currently we want to use klint
> > > > > > [1] to detect all context mis-matches at compile time. So the above rule
> > > > > > extends for kernel: any type-checked *and klint-checked* code that only
> > > > > > calls safe Rust functions cannot be unsafe. I.e. we add additional
> > > > > > compile time checking for unsafe code. So if might_sleep() has the
> > > > > > proper klint annotation, and we actually enable klint for kernel code,
> > > > > > then we can make it safe (along with preemption disable functions being
> > > > > > safe).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > where you use a sleeping function in atomic context. Depending on why
> > > > > > > you are in atomic context, it might appear to work, until it does not
> > > > > > > actually work, and bad things happen. So it is not might_sleep() which
> > > > > > > is unsafe, it is the Rust code calling it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The whole point of unsafe functions is that calling it may result into
> > > > > > unsafe code, so that's why all extern "C" functions are unsafe, so are
> > > > > > might_sleep() (without klint in the picture).
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a psychological part to this. might_sleep() is a good debug
> > > > > tool, which costs very little in normal builds, but finds logic bugs
> > > > > when enabled in debug builds. What we don't want is Rust developers
> > > > > not scattering it though their code because it adds unsafe code, and
> > > > > the aim is not to have any unsafe code.
> > > >
> > > > We can add a safe wrapper for it:
> > > >
> > > > pub fn might_sleep() {
> > > >     // SAFETY: Always safe to call.
> > > >     unsafe { bindings::might_sleep() };
> > >
> > > It's not always safe to call, because might_sleep() has a
> > > might_resched() and in preempt=voluntary kernel, that's a
> > > cond_resched(), which may eventually call __schedule() and report a
> > > quiescent state of RCU. This could means an unexpected early grace
> > > period, and that means a potential use-afer-free.
> > 
> > Atomicity violations are intended to be caught by klint. If you want
> 
> Yes, I already mentioned this to Andrew previously.
> 
> > to change that decision, you'll have to add unsafe to all functions
> > that sleep including Mutex::lock, CondVar::wait, and many others.
> 
> No, I'm not trying to change that decision, just to make it clear that
> we can mark might_sleep() as safe because of the decision, not because
> it's really safe even without klint...
> 

Anyway, I think Tomo needs to call __might_sleep() instead of
might_sleep(), and __might_sleep() seems a pure debug function (not
involved with schedule at all). So the wrapper of __might_sleep() can be
perfectly safe.

Regards,
Boqun

> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > 
> > Alice