rust/kernel/security.rs | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
From: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
All types in `bindings` implement `Zeroable` if they can, so use
`pin_init::zeroed` instead of relying on `unsafe` code.
If this ends up not compiling in the future, something in bindgen or on
the C side changed and is most likely incorrect.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250814093046.2071971-8-lossin@kernel.org
Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1189
Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <nils.lehnen@proton.me>
---
Resend of Benno's patch from the Zeroable series [1]: only patches 1, 2
and 11 of that series were applied, and the issue [2] asks for the rest
to be re-sent. Rebased onto rust-next; it applied cleanly, and a
defconfig build with CONFIG_RUST=y and CONFIG_SECURITY=y passes.
Two equivalent one-off patches were posted earlier [3][4]; Miguel asked
in [5] for a resend that keeps Benno's authorship, which this is.
Cc'ing the LSM list per Paul's request on the original thread.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250814093046.2071971-1-lossin@kernel.org
[2] https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1189
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251129135657.36144-1-atharvd440@gmail.com
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260120083824.477339-8-sunke@kylinos.cn
[5] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CANiq72nJqFOR9vhPBfZUNrxU+M1HMV6wN9bN6i8e9rf_oOD2qw@mail.gmail.com
rust/kernel/security.rs | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/rust/kernel/security.rs b/rust/kernel/security.rs
index 9d271695265f..4dc3eba6ce84 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/security.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/security.rs
@@ -62,8 +62,7 @@ impl SecurityCtx {
/// Get the security context given its id.
#[inline]
pub fn from_secid(secid: u32) -> Result<Self> {
- // SAFETY: `struct lsm_context` can be initialized to all zeros.
- let mut ctx: bindings::lsm_context = unsafe { core::mem::zeroed() };
+ let mut ctx: bindings::lsm_context = pin_init::zeroed();
// SAFETY: Just a C FFI call. The pointer is valid for writes.
to_result(unsafe { bindings::security_secid_to_secctx(secid, &mut ctx) })?;
base-commit: 73e3f0710014fe6d4ed98cfc02292f6121db7558
--
2.43.0
On Aug 27, 2026 Nils Lehnen <nils.lehnen@proton.me> wrote: > > All types in `bindings` implement `Zeroable` if they can, so use > `pin_init::zeroed` instead of relying on `unsafe` code. > > If this ends up not compiling in the future, something in bindgen or on > the C side changed and is most likely incorrect. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250814093046.2071971-8-lossin@kernel.org > Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1189 > Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> > Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <nils.lehnen@proton.me> > Link: https://patch.msgid.link/... > Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> > Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net> > --- > Resend of Benno's patch from the Zeroable series [1]: only patches 1, 2 > and 11 of that series were applied, and the issue [2] asks for the rest > to be re-sent. Rebased onto rust-next; it applied cleanly, and a > defconfig build with CONFIG_RUST=y and CONFIG_SECURITY=y passes. > > Two equivalent one-off patches were posted earlier [3][4]; Miguel asked > in [5] for a resend that keeps Benno's authorship, which this is. > Cc'ing the LSM list per Paul's request on the original thread. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250814093046.2071971-1-lossin@kernel.org > [2] https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1189 > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251129135657.36144-1-atharvd440@gmail.com > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260120083824.477339-8-sunke@kylinos.cn > [5] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CANiq72nJqFOR9vhPBfZUNrxU+M1HMV6wN9bN6i8e9rf_oOD2qw@mail.gmail.com > > rust/kernel/security.rs | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Merged into lsm/dev, thanks everyone! -- paul-moore.com
On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 4:44 AM Nils Lehnen <nils.lehnen@proton.me> wrote: > > From: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> > > All types in `bindings` implement `Zeroable` if they can, so use > `pin_init::zeroed` instead of relying on `unsafe` code. > > If this ends up not compiling in the future, something in bindgen or on > the C side changed and is most likely incorrect. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250814093046.2071971-8-lossin@kernel.org > Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1189 > Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com> > Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <nils.lehnen@proton.me> Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 4:44 AM Nils Lehnen <nils.lehnen@proton.me> wrote: > > Two equivalent one-off patches were posted earlier [3][4]; Miguel asked > in [5] for a resend that keeps Benno's authorship, which this is. > Cc'ing the LSM list per Paul's request on the original thread. Looks good, thanks! Nit: nowadays we typically use a: Link: https://patch.msgid.link/... to refer to a patch that was picked from the mailing list (usually written on top of your Signed-off-by) -- `b4` can do it for you automatically. But no need to resend just for that, of course (and Paul/I/we can/may change it when it gets applied :) Cheers, Miguel
On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 2:15 AM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 4:44 AM Nils Lehnen <nils.lehnen@proton.me> wrote: > > > > Two equivalent one-off patches were posted earlier [3][4]; Miguel asked > > in [5] for a resend that keeps Benno's authorship, which this is. > > Cc'ing the LSM list per Paul's request on the original thread. > > Looks good, thanks! > > Nit: nowadays we typically use a: > > Link: https://patch.msgid.link/... > > to refer to a patch that was picked from the mailing list (usually > written on top of your Signed-off-by) -- `b4` can do it for you > automatically. > > But no need to resend just for that, of course (and Paul/I/we can/may > change it when it gets applied :) Looks fine to me, I'm assuming the Rust folks would prefer to take this patch? -- paul-moore.com
On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 11:51 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > Looks fine to me, I'm assuming the Rust folks would prefer to take this patch? Up to you! If usually patches go through your tree, then that is fine; otherwise, I am happy to take it of course (ideally with an Acked-by). Thanks! Cheers, Miguel
On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 6:43 PM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 11:51 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > > > Looks fine to me, I'm assuming the Rust folks would prefer to take this patch? > > Up to you! If usually patches go through your tree, then that is fine; > otherwise, I am happy to take it of course (ideally with an Acked-by). I'm not sure we have a "usually" yet with the Rust LSM glue code, but I'm happy to take this patch :) Since you've already reviewed it, can I add your Reviewed-by tag? -- paul-moore.com
On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 4:20 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure we have a "usually" yet with the Rust LSM glue code, but > I'm happy to take this patch :) > > Since you've already reviewed it, can I add your Reviewed-by tag? Sure! Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> Cheers, Miguel
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.