linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpu: nova-core: add initial driver stub

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQQey_QweH+favrXPhrEkVwyqCXRG+UBn-oG6wb+n4+gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:09:13 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, corbet@....net, 
	maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, 
	ajanulgu@...hat.com, lyude@...hat.com, pstanner@...hat.com, zhiw@...dia.com, 
	cjia@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, bskeggs@...dia.com, acurrid@...dia.com, 
	ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, 
	gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me, 
	a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, joelagnelf@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpu: nova-core: add initial driver stub

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 1:46 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 03:24:10PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Hi Danilo,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:04:24PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > +#[pin_data]
> > > +pub(crate) struct NovaCore {
> > > +    #[pin]
> > > +    pub(crate) gpu: Gpu,
> > > +}
> >
> > I am curious what is the need for pinning here in the patch in its current
> > form, is it for future-proofing?
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> It's not always needed, but since I know that further down the road we'll need
> at least a few mutexes, it seemed reasonable to already consider it.

It seems reasonable to me as well, I would probably also add a code
comment there about what is expected to be unmovable in the future
(Just in case any code readers don't raise the same question I was
raising).

The source of the confusion for a reader could be the documentation
expecting a #[pin].

 - Joel