Hi Miguel, sorry for the delay in replying!
On Thu Aug 28, 2025 at 8:26 PM JST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 10:47 AM Alexandre Courbot <acour...@nvidia.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> However, `fw_start + fw_size` can panic in debug configuration if it
>> overflows. In a release build I believe it will just happily wrap, and
>
> In the kernel, it is a panic in the default configuration, not just a debug
> one.
>
> We have debug assertions too -- and those are disabled by default, but
> they are separate from the overflow checking, which is the one enabled
> by default.
>
> So, any use of those operators is limited to cases where one knows,
> somehow, that it will not overflow. And e.g. user-controlled inputs
> cannot use them at all.
>
> So, conceptually, something like this:
>
> - Static assert if the compiler knows it cannot fail.
> - Build assert if the optimizer knows it cannot fail.
> - Unfallible (like the possibly panicking operators) if the
> developer knows it cannot fail.
> - Fallible/wrapping/saturating/... if the developer isn't sure or it
> simply cannot be known until runtime. User-derived inputs must use
> this option (or rarely the unsafe one).
> - Unsafe if the developer knows it cannot fail and the other options
> are not acceptable for some reason. Ideally paired with a debug
> assertion (the compiler adds these already for many unsafe
> preconditions).
>
> In the past I requested upstream Rust a way to have a "third mode"
> ("report and continue") for the operators so that it would wrap (like
> the non-panicking mode) but allowing us to add a customization point
> so that we can e.g. `WARN_ON_ONCE`.
That would be nice, but also wouldn't cover all the cases where implicit
panics can happen, like out-of-bounds slice accesses - we can't have a
"report-and-continue" mode for these.
And that's really the elephant in the room IMHO: such panic sites can be
introduced implicitly, without the programmer realizing it, potentially
resulting in more runtime panics for Rust modules than one might expect
from a language whose main selling point is safety. I understand that
the previous sentence is a bit fallacious, since such panics indicate
bugs in the code that would likely go unnoticed in C (which is arguably
worse). But perception matters, and such crashes can be damaging to the
reputation of the project.
In user-space, crates like `no_panic` can provide a compile-time
guarantee that a given function cannot panic. I don't know how that
would translate to the kernel, but ideally we could have some support
from tooling (compiler and/or LSP?) to warn us of sites introduced in
the code. After all, since the compiler inserts these panic sites, it
should also be able to tell us where they are, allowing us to evaluate
(and hopefully remove) them before the code ships to users. Most of them
could then be eliminated by constraining inputs or using checked
variants.
I am not suggesting we should mandate that ALL Rust kernel code be
proven panic-free at compile time, however since I started writing
kernel code in Rust, I've often wished I had a simple way to check
whether my carefully-crafted function processing user-space data really
*is* panic-free.
> As for discussing no-panic, sure!
Writing a uC topic proposal for Plumbers right now. :)
