Re: [PATCH] rust: uaccess: avoid unsafe unwrap_unchecked() in strcpy_into_buf()

From: Gary Guo

Date: Thu Oct 08 2026 - 15:26:38 EST


On Thu Oct 8, 2026 at 7:49 PM BST, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 10:15:49PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 8, 2026 at 3:13 PM JST, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>> > Since strcpy_into_buf() already rejects empty buffers, use ok_or()
>> > instead of unwrap_unchecked() when NUL-terminating the buffer.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <blum@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > rust/kernel/uaccess.rs | 4 +---
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/uaccess.rs b/rust/kernel/uaccess.rs
>> > index 5f6c4d7a1a51..2a0af795e75d 100644
>> > --- a/rust/kernel/uaccess.rs
>> > +++ b/rust/kernel/uaccess.rs
>> > @@ -422,9 +422,7 @@ pub fn strcpy_into_buf<'buf>(self, buf: &'buf mut [u8]) -> Result<&'buf CStr> {
>> > // This means that we filled the buffer exactly. In this case, we add a NUL-terminator
>> > // and return it. Unlike the `len < dst.len()` branch, don't modify `len` because it
>> > // already represents the length including the NUL-terminator.
>> > - //
>> > - // SAFETY: Due to the check at the beginning, the buffer is not empty.
>> > - unsafe { *buf.last_mut().unwrap_unchecked() = 0 };
>> > + *buf.last_mut().ok_or(EINVAL)? = 0;
>>
>> I am not sure this gives us much - we are trading an unsafe statement
>> that is well-controlled (enforced by the first two lines of the method)
>> for a runtime check. I'd say this is working as intended here.
>
> I checked the generated code before and after the patch and it is
> identical since the compiler is able to remove the additional check.
> Therefore, this removes an unsafe block without adding runtime cost.
>
> It also avoids relying on the buf.is_empty() check to prevent undefined
> behavior.

Adding an error returning path is worse for something that cannot happen is
worse than invoking unsafe in my opinion.

Why not just unwrap?

*buf.last_mut().unwrap() = 0;

Best,
Gary