linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request

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: <BEDD659F-B222-4150-9018-3B59126140E6@collabora.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 10:16:33 -0300
From: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
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>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: irq: add support for request_irq()

>> 
>> Well, not really, because this impl PinInit can be assigned to something larger
>> that is already pinned, like drm::Device::Data for example, which is (or was)
>> already behind an Arc, or any other private data in other subsystems.
>> 
>> IIUC what you proposed has yet another indirection. If we reuse the example
>> from above, that would be an Arc for the drm Data, and another Arc for the
>> handler itself?
> 
> Can't you implement Handler for drm::Device::Data and e.g. make Registration
> take an Arc<T: Handler>?

No, because drivers may need more than one handler. Panthor needs 3, for
example, for 3 different lines.

> 
> The irq::Registration itself doesn't need to be allocated dynamically, so it'd
> still be a single allocation, no?
> 

Right, the registrations don't, but the handlers do.

— Daniel