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

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Fri Oct 9, 2026 at 4:23 AM JST, Gary Guo wrote:
> 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;

I guess the author of the code decided to avoid `unwrap` for the same
reason they avoided a runtime error: the first two lines of the method
guarantee that the access is valid. Now I wish we could keep the
enforcing statement closer to the unsafe block relying it, but I cannot
find a better way to write that method. `unwrap` would just switch the
`SAFETY` statement for a `PANIC` one.

Honestly I think this code is fine as it is.