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: <CAH5fLggKL4jMjrJJEYV=Snqftu+oc4-sTNj9spinON5kHVP9xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:57:22 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, 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>, 
	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 Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 11:43 AM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > I don't think that helps. If Devres::drop gets to swap is_available
> > before the devm callback performs the swap, then the devm callback is
> > just a no-op and the device still doesn't wait for free_irq() to
> > finish running.
>
> True, this will indeed always be racy. The rule from the C API has always been
> that devm_{remove,release}_action() must not be called if a concurrent unbind
> can't be ruled out. Consequently, the same is true for Revocable::revoke() in
> this case.
>
> I think Devres::drop() shouldn't do anything then and instead we should provide
> Devres::release() and Devres::remove(), which require the &Device<Bound>
> reference the Devres object was created with, in order to prove that there
> can't be a concurrent unbind, just like Devres::access().

What I suggested with the mutex would work if you remove the devm
callback *after* calling free_irq.

    // drop Registration
    mutex_lock();
    free_irq();
    mutex_unlock();
    devm_remove_callback();

    // devm callback
    mutex_lock();
    free_irq();
    mutex_unlock();

Another simpler option is to just not support unregistering the irq
callback except through devm. Then you don't have a registration at
all. Creating the callback can take an irq number and a ForeignOwnable
to put in the void pointer. The devm callback calls free_irq and drops
the ForeignOwnable.

Alice