[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFrTyXcFVOjWa2o-@Mac.home>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:35:21 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, lkmm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mitchell Levy <levymitchell0@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] rust: sync: atomic: Add generic atomics
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 01:27:38AM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Mon Jun 23, 2025 at 9:09 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 07:30:19PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> >> cannot just transmute between from pointers to usize (which is its
> >> Repr):
> >> * Transmuting from pointer to usize discards provenance
> >> * Transmuting from usize to pointer gives invalid provenance
> >>
> >> We want neither behaviour, so we must store `usize` directly and
> >> always call into repr functions.
> >>
> >
> > If we store `usize`, how can we support the `get_mut()` then? E.g.
> >
> > static V: i32 = 32;
> >
> > let mut x = Atomic::new(&V as *const i32 as *mut i32);
> > // ^ assume we expose_provenance() in new().
> >
> > let ptr: &mut *mut i32 = x.get_mut(); // which is `&mut self.0.get()`.
> >
> > let ptr_val = *ptr; // Does `ptr_val` have the proper provenance?
>
> If `get_mut` transmutes the integer into a pointer, then it will have
> the wrong provenance (it will just have plain invalid provenance).
>
The key topic Gary and I have been discussing is whether we should
define Atomic<T> as:
(my current implementation)
pub struct Atomic<T: AllowAtomic>(Opaque<T>);
or
(Gary's suggestion)
pub struct Atomic<T: AllowAtomic>(Opaque<T::Repr>);
`T::Repr` is guaranteed to be the same size and alignment of `T`, and
per our discussion, it makes sense to further require that `transmute<T,
T::Repr>()` should also be safe (as the safety requirement of
`AllowAtomic`), or we can say `T` bit validity can be preserved by
`T::Repr`: a valid bit combination `T` can be transumated to `T::Repr`,
and if transumated back, it's the same bit combination.
Now as I pointed out, if we use `Opaque<T::Repr>`, then `.get_mut()`
would be unsound for `Atomic<*mut T>`. And Gary's concern is that in
the current implementation, we directly cast a `*mut T` (from
`Opaque::get()`) into a `*mut T::Repr`, and pass it directly into C/asm
atomic primitives. However, I think with the additional safety
requirement above, this shouldn't be a problem: because the C/asm atomic
primitives would just pass the address to an asm block, and that'll be
out of Rust abstract machine, and as long as the C/primitives atomic
primitives are implemented correctly, the bit representation of `T`
remains valid after asm blocks.
So I think the current implementation still works and is better.
Regards,
Boqun
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
Powered by blists - more mailing lists