Re: [PATCH] rust: ioctl: Add ioctl number manipulation functions

[Gary Guo]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:43:27 +0100
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, at 08:36, Asahi Lina wrote:
> > Add simple 1:1 wrappers of the C ioctl number manipulation functions.
> > Since these are macros we cannot bindgen them directly, and since they
> > should be usable in const context we cannot use helper wrappers, so
> > we'll have to reimplement them in Rust. Thankfully, the C headers do
> > declare defines for the relevant bitfield positions, so we don't need
> > to duplicate that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <lina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
> 
> I don't know much rust yet, but it looks like a correct abstraction
> that handles all the corner cases of architectures with unusual
> _IOC_*MASK combinations the same way as the C version.
> 
> There is one corner case I'm not sure about:
> 
> > +/// Build an ioctl number, analogous to the C macro of the same name.
> > +const fn _IOC(dir: u32, ty: u32, nr: u32, size: usize) -> u32 {
> > +    core::assert!(dir <= bindings::_IOC_DIRMASK);
> > +    core::assert!(ty <= bindings::_IOC_TYPEMASK);
> > +    core::assert!(nr <= bindings::_IOC_NRMASK);
> > +    core::assert!(size <= (bindings::_IOC_SIZEMASK as usize));
> > +
> > +    (dir << bindings::_IOC_DIRSHIFT)
> > +        | (ty << bindings::_IOC_TYPESHIFT)
> > +        | (nr << bindings::_IOC_NRSHIFT)
> > +        | ((size as u32) << bindings::_IOC_SIZESHIFT)
> > +}  
> 
> This has the assertions inside of _IOC() while the C version
> has them in the outer _IOR()/_IOW() /_IOWR() helpers. This was
> intentional since some users of _IOC() pass a variable
> length in rather than sizeof(type), and this would cause
> a link failure in C.
> 
> How is the _IOC_SIZEMASK assertion evaluated here? It's
> probably ok if this is a compile-time assertion that prevents
> the variable-length arguments, but it would be bad if this
> could lead to a BUG() or panic() in case of a user-supplied
> length that is out of range.

This is a very good point.

The code, as currently written, will cause a compile-time error if
`_IOC` is used in const contexts (i.e. used in const generics
arguments, or inside a `const {}` block), and it will become a runtime
`BUG()` if used elsewhere.

We do have a facility to enforce compile-time checks, that's
`kernel::build_assert!()`. If runtime values are used and the
compiler can't optimise these assertions out, a link failure would
be triggered just like how our C code does that.

Lina, could you change these `core::assert!` calls to build assert?

Best,
Gary