Message-ID: <ea3ef06b-8c4c-4883-867f-b68f2eb589af@proton.me>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 13:46:29 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] rust: list: add struct with prev/next pointers

On 01.08.24 14:51, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 12:45 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>>
>> On 01.08.24 11:42, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 8:41 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 23.07.24 10:22, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>>>>> +/// The prev/next pointers for an item in a linked list.
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// # Invariants
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// The fields are null if and only if this item is not in a list.
>>>>> +#[repr(transparent)]
>>>>> +pub struct ListLinks<const ID: u64 = 0> {
>>>>> +    #[allow(dead_code)]
>>>>> +    inner: Opaque<ListLinksFields>,
>>>>
>>>> Do you really need `Opaque`? Or would `UnsafeCell` be enough? (If it is
>>>> enough and you change this, be aware that `Opaque` is `!Unpin`, so if
>>>> you intend for `ListLinks` to also be `!Unpin`, then you need a
>>>> `PhantomPinned`)
>>>
>>> I need the `!Unpin` part for aliasing.
>>
>> Oh good point, do you mind adding a comment for that?
>>
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +// SAFETY: The next/prev fields of a ListLinks can be moved across thread boundaries.
>>>>
>>>> Why? This is not a justification.
>>>
>>> What would you say?
>>
>> While trying to come up with a safety comment I thought about the
>> following: this impl does not depend on the type that is behind the
>> pointer (ie the type containing the `ListLinks`). Thus this `ListLinks`
>> will always implement `Send` even if the pointed-to value does not.
>> What we could do (and what definitely would be correct) is this:
>> `List` can only be used with `Send` types, then we could implement
>> `Send` for `ListLinks`. But I haven't actually come up with a problem,
>> so there might a more permissive solution.
>> Do you have a use-case where you need `!Send` types in a list?
>>
>> Here is a part of my reasoning: If the pointed-to value is `!Send`, then
>> the `List` item type must also be `!Send`. Thus all list operations take
>> place on the same thread (since the `List` will be `!Send`). Therefore
>> nobody can access the `prev`/`next` pointers from another thread.
>>
>> But this does not justify that `ListLinks` can be made `Send`. (although
>> there isn't actually a problem)

I think I confused myself. The paragraph above actually explains why we
are allowed to make `ListLinks: Send`. What do you think of the
following comment:

// SAFETY: The only way to access/modify the pointers inside of `ListLinks<ID>` is via holding the
// associated `ListArc<T, ID>`. Since that type correctly implements `Send`, it is impossible to
// move this an instance of this type to a different thread if the pointees are `!Send`.

> I don't think there's any reason to forbid lists with !Send types. The
> List just becomes !Send too.

Yes, but that doesn't explain why `ListLinks` is allowed to be `Send`.

---
Cheers,
Benno

Powered by blists - more mailing lists