linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Device / Driver and PCI Rust abstractions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240620100556.xsehtd7ii25rtn7k@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:35:56 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com,
	boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
	benno.lossin@...ton.me, a.hindborg@...sung.com,
	aliceryhl@...gle.com, airlied@...il.com, fujita.tomonori@...il.com,
	lina@...hilina.net, pstanner@...hat.com, ajanulgu@...hat.com,
	lyude@...hat.com, robh@...nel.org, daniel.almeida@...labora.com,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidianakis@...aro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Device / Driver and PCI Rust abstractions

On 19-06-24, 14:36, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> If you want to split `cpufreq::Registration` in `new()` and `register()`, you
> probably want to pass the registration object to `Devres` in `register()`
> instead.
> 
> However, I wouldn't recommend splitting it up (unless you absolutely have to),
> it's way cleaner (and probably less racy) if things are registered once the
> registration is created.

> The PCI abstraction did not need to change for that, since it uses the
> generalized `driver::Registration`, which is handled by the `Module` structure
> instead.
> 
> However, staging/dev also contains the `drm::drv::Registration` type [1], which
> in principle does the same thing as `cpufreq::Registration` just for a DRM
> device.
> 
> If you're looking for an example driver making use of this, please have a look
> at Nova [1].

Thanks for the pointers Danilo.

There is more to it now and I still don't know what's the best way
forward. :(

Devres will probably work well with the frameworks that provide a bus,
where a device and driver are matched and probe/remove are called.
Obviously Devres needs a struct device, whose probing/removal can
allocate/free resources.

The CPUFreq framework is a bit different. There is no bus, device or
driver there. The device for the framework is the CPU device, but we
don't (can't) really bind a struct driver to it. There are more layers
in the kernel which use the CPU devices directly, like cpuidle, etc.
And so the CPU device isn't really private to the cpufreq/cpuidle
frameworks.

Most of the cpufreq drivers register with the cpufreq core from their
module_init() function, and unregister from module_exit(). There is no
probe/remove() callbacks available. Some drivers though have a
platform device/driver model implemented over an imaginary platform
device, a hack implemented to get them working because of special
requirements (one of them is to allow defer probing to work). The
driver I am implementing, cpufreq-dt, also has one such platform
device which is created at runtime. But there will be others without a
platform device.

The point is that the Rust cpufreq core can't do the Devres stuff
itself and it can't expect a struct device to be made available to it
by the driver. Some cpufreq drivers will have a platform device, some
won't.

One way to make this whole work is to reintroduce the Data part, just
for cpufreq core, but I really don't want to do it. What else can be
done ?

-- 
viresh