[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72m3WFj9Eb2iRUM3mLFibWW+cupAoNQt+cqtNa4O9=jq7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 15:14:05 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
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 Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 2:13 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> As far as i see, might_sleep() will cause UAF where there is going to
> be a UAF anyway. If you are using it correctly, it does not cause UAF.
This already implies that it is an unsafe function (in general, i.e.
modulo klint, or a way to force the user to have to write `unsafe`
somewhere else, or what I call ASHes -- "acknowledged soundness
holes").
If we consider as safe functions that, if used correctly, do not cause
UB, then all functions would be safe.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists