Re: [PATCH 5/7] rust: file: add `Kuid` wrapper

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:02:24PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:36:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 01:12:17PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/rust/helpers.c b/rust/helpers.c
> > > index fd633d9db79a..58e3a9dff349 100644
> > > --- a/rust/helpers.c
> > > +++ b/rust/helpers.c
> > > @@ -142,6 +142,51 @@ void rust_helper_put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rust_helper_put_task_struct);
> > >  
> > > +kuid_t rust_helper_task_uid(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > +	return task_uid(task);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rust_helper_task_uid);
> > > +
> > > +kuid_t rust_helper_task_euid(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > +	return task_euid(task);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rust_helper_task_euid);
> > 
> > Aren't these like ideal speculation gadgets? And shouldn't we avoid
> > functions like this for exactly that reason?
> 
> I think asking the Rust people to care about that is probably putting
> too many constraints on them, unless you actually have an idea for
> something better to do...

It's not a constraint, it is a "we can not do this as it is buggy
because cpus are broken and we need to protect users from those bugs."

If we were to accept this type of code, then the people who are going
"it's safer to write kernel code in Rust" would be "pleasantly
surprised" when it turns out that their systems are actually more
insecure.

Hint, when "known broken" code is found in code review, it can not just
be ignored.

thanks,

greg k-h