netdev - Re: [PATCH v10 7/8] 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: <20250214.130530.335441284525755047.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 13:05:30 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: gary@...yguo.net
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch,
 hkallweit1@...il.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, ojeda@...nel.org,
 alex.gaynor@...il.com, 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,
 jstultz@...gle.com, sboyd@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
 dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
 mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, tgunders@...hat.com, me@...enk.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 7/8] rust: Add read_poll_timeout functions

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:20:48 +0000
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net> wrote:

>> +fn might_sleep(loc: &Location<'_>) {
>> +    // SAFETY: FFI call.
>> +    unsafe {
>> +        crate::bindings::__might_sleep_precision(
>> +            loc.file().as_ptr().cast(),
>> +            loc.file().len() as i32,
>> +            loc.line() as i32,
>> +        )
>> +    }
>> +}
> 
> One last Q: why isn't `might_sleep` marked as `track_caller` and then
> have `Location::caller` be called internally?
>
> It would make the API same as the C macro.

Equivalent to the C side __might_sleep(), not might_sleep(). To avoid
confusion, it might be better to change the name of this function.

The reason why __might_sleep() is used instead of might_sleep() is
might_sleep() can't always be called. It was discussed in v2:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZwPT7HZvG1aYONkQ@boqun-archlinux/

> Also -- perhaps this function can be public (though I guess you'd need
> to put it in a new module).

Wouldn't it be better to keep it private until actual users appear?