Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:18:54 +0300
From: Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidianakis@...aro.org>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Bjö rn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidianakis@...aro.org>, Erik Schilling <erik.schilling@...aro.org>, Alex Benné e <alex.bennee@...aro.org>, Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/8] rust: Add initial bindings for OPP framework

On Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:51, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> This commit adds initial Rust bindings for the Operating performance
>> points (OPP) core. This adds bindings for `struct dev_pm_opp` and
>> `struct dev_pm_opp_data` to begin with.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>
>> +//! Operating performance points.
>> +//!
>> +//! This module provides bindings for interacting with the OPP subsystem.
>> +//!
>> +//! C header: [`include/linux/pm_opp.h`](../../../../../../include/linux/pm_opp.h)
>
>Please use srctree links instead.
>
>C header: [`include/linux/pm_opp.h`](srctree/include/linux/pm_opp.h)
>
>> +impl OPP {
>> +    /// Creates a reference to a [`OPP`] from a valid pointer.
>> +    ///
>> +    /// # Safety
>> +    ///
>> +    /// The caller must ensure that `ptr` is valid and remains valid for the lifetime of the
>> +    /// returned [`OPP`] reference.
>> +    pub unsafe fn from_ptr_owned(ptr: *mut bindings::dev_pm_opp) -> Result<ARef<Self>> {
>> +        let ptr = ptr::NonNull::new(ptr).ok_or(ENODEV)?;
>> +
>> +        // SAFETY: The safety requirements guarantee the validity of the pointer.
>> +        //
>> +        // INVARIANT: The refcount is already incremented by the C API that returned the pointer,
>> +        // and we pass ownership of the refcount to the new `ARef<OPP>`.
>> +        Ok(unsafe { ARef::from_raw(ptr.cast()) })
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /// Creates a reference to a [`OPP`] from a valid pointer.
>> +    ///
>> +    /// # Safety
>> +    ///
>> +    /// The caller must ensure that `ptr` is valid and remains valid for the lifetime of the
>> +    /// returned [`OPP`] reference.
>> +    pub unsafe fn from_ptr(ptr: *mut bindings::dev_pm_opp) -> Result<ARef<Self>> {
>> +        let opp = unsafe { Self::from_ptr_owned(ptr) }?;
>> +
>> +        // Take an extra reference to the OPP since the caller didn't take it.
>> +        opp.inc_ref();
>> +
>> +        Ok(opp)
>> +    }
>
>I would recommend a slightly different approach here. You can provide
>a method called `from_raw_opp` that takes a *mut bindings::dev_pm_opp
>and returns a &Self. The ARef type provides a method that converts
>&Self to ARef<Self> by taking a refcount. This way, users would also
>be able to call OPP methods without giving Rust any refcounts. You can

Wouldn't this allow for use-after-free? What if the refcount drops to 0 
before the method is called?

>As for `from_ptr_owned`, I would probably rename it to
>`from_raw_opp_owned` or similar. It's often nice to use a more
>descriptive name than just "ptr".
>I think most existing examples call this `as_raw` and mark it 
>`#[inline]`.

I think `ptr` is more idiomatic to Rust users, not that your suggestion 
is wrong. from_ptr_owned also implies the function signature.


>
>> +    /// Adds an OPP dynamically.
>> +    pub fn add(dev: ARef<Device>, mut data: Data) -> Result<()> {
>> +        // SAFETY: The requirements are satisfied by the existence of `Device` and its safety
>> +        // requirements.
>> +        to_result(unsafe { bindings::dev_pm_opp_add_dynamic(dev.as_raw(), &mut data.0) })
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /// Removes a dynamically added OPP.
>> +    pub fn remove(dev: ARef<Device>, freq: u64) {
>> +        // SAFETY: The requirements are satisfied by the existence of `Device` and its safety
>> +        // requirements.
>> +        unsafe { bindings::dev_pm_opp_remove(dev.as_raw(), freq) };
>> +    }
>
>Is it intentional that these methods take ownership of a refcount to
>the device that it then drops after calling the C function?

use-after-free again? Though I'm suggesting this without actually 
examining if it can happen.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists