[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZiGlC5AtRRikE1AI@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:56:11 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] rust: add abstraction for `struct page`
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:08:40PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 18.04.24 20:52, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:59:20AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> >> + /// Runs a piece of code with a raw pointer to a slice of this page, with bounds checking.
> >> + ///
> >> + /// If `f` is called, then it will be called with a pointer that points at `off` bytes into the
> >> + /// page, and the pointer will be valid for at least `len` bytes. The pointer is only valid on
> >> + /// this task, as this method uses a local mapping.
> >> + ///
> >> + /// If `off` and `len` refers to a region outside of this page, then this method returns
> >> + /// `EINVAL` and does not call `f`.
> >> + ///
> >> + /// # Using the raw pointer
> >> + ///
> >> + /// It is up to the caller to use the provided raw pointer correctly. The pointer is valid for
> >> + /// `len` bytes and for the duration in which the closure is called. The pointer might only be
> >> + /// mapped on the current thread, and when that is the case, dereferencing it on other threads
> >> + /// is UB. Other than that, the usual rules for dereferencing a raw pointer apply: don't cause
> >> + /// data races, the memory may be uninitialized, and so on.
> >> + ///
> >> + /// If multiple threads map the same page at the same time, then they may reference with
> >> + /// different addresses. However, even if the addresses are different, the underlying memory is
> >> + /// still the same for these purposes (e.g., it's still a data race if they both write to the
> >> + /// same underlying byte at the same time).
> >> + fn with_pointer_into_page<T>(
> >> + &self,
> >> + off: usize,
> >> + len: usize,
> >> + f: impl FnOnce(*mut u8) -> Result<T>,
> >
> > I wonder whether the way to go here is making this function signature:
> >
> > fn with_slice_in_page<T> (
> > &self,
> > off: usize,
> > len: usize,
> > f: iml FnOnce(&UnsafeCell<[u8]>) -> Result<T>
> > ) -> Result<T>
> >
> > , because in this way, it makes a bit more clear that what memory that
> > `f` can access, in other words, the users are less likely to use the
> > pointer in a wrong way.
> >
> > But that depends on whether `&UnsafeCell<[u8]>` is the correct
> > abstraction and the ecosystem around it: for example, I feel like these
> > two functions:
> >
> > fn len(slice: &UnsafeCell<[u8]>) -> usize
> > fn as_ptr(slice: &UnsafeCell<[u8]>) -> *mut u8
> >
> > should be trivially safe, but I might be wrong. Again this is just for
> > future discussion.
>
> I think the "better" type would be `&[UnsafeCell<u8>]`. Since there you
> can always access the length.
>
Hmm.. here is the thing, having `&UnsafeCell<[u8]>` means having a `*mut
[u8]>`, and it should always be safe to get a "length" of `*mut [u8]`,
right? I haven't found any method doing that, but the length should be
just a part of fat pointer, so I think getting that is a defined
behavior. But maybe I'm missing something.
> Another question would be if page allows for uninitialized bits, in that
> case, we would need `&[Opaque<u8>]`.
>
Yes, or `&Opaque<[u8>]`.
Regards,
Boqun
> But I don't remember how to get a valid raw pointer from
> `&[UnsafeCell<u8>]`.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Benno
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists