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: <aCXv86nAARGgoqEq@pollux>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 15:45:23 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: 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>,
	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()

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 10:16:33AM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> 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.

Why does the handler need to be allocated dynamically?

What about something like the following?

	pub struct Registration<T, H: Handler<T>> { ... };

	pub trait Handler<T> {
	   fn handle_irq(&T) -> IrqReturn;
	}

	// Could be `drm::Device::Data`.
	struct MyData { ... };

	// Implements `Handler<MyData>`.
	struct IRQHandler1;
	struct IRQHandler2;

	// `data` is `Arc<MyData>`
	irq::Registration::<IRQHandler1>::new(data, ...);
	irq::Registration::<IRQHandler2>::new(data, ...);

With that you can have as many IRQs as you want without any additional
allocation.