linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator abstraction

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID:
 <AM7P189MB1009748DBA1F99F2BBEC2292E3A12@AM7P189MB1009.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:36:23 +0100
From: Maud Spierings <maud_spierings@...mail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
 Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
 Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
 Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator
 abstraction



On 3/27/25 12:32, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 04:49:26PM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>>> On 26 Mar 2025, at 15:56, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> +    /// Disables the regulator.
>>>> +    pub fn disable(self) -> Result<Regulator> {
>>>> +        // Keep the count on `regulator_get()`.
>>>> +        let regulator = ManuallyDrop::new(self);
> 
>>> This looks like user code could manually call it which feels like asking
>>> for trouble?
> 
>> Yes, user code can call this. My understanding is that drivers may want to
>> disable the regulator at runtime, possibly to save power when the device is
>> idle?
> 
>> What trouble are you referring to?
> 
> My understanding was that the enable was done by transforming a
> Regulator into an EnabledRegulator but if you can explicitly call
> disable() on an EnabledRegulator without destroying it then you've got
> an EnabledRegulator which isn't actually enabled.  Perhaps it's not
> clear to me how the API should work?

 From my understanding, disable() takes ownership of self, it does not 
take a reference, so the EnabledRegulator is consumed and the Regulator 
is returned through the result. So EnabledRegulator will get dropped in 
this function which owns it.