linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] rust: devres: get rid of Devres' inner Arc

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: <aF0p5vIcL_4PBJCG@pollux>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:07:18 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	rafael@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
	gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, a.hindborg@...nel.org,
	aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, david.m.ertman@...el.com,
	ira.weiny@...el.com, leon@...nel.org, kwilczynski@...nel.org,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] rust: devres: get rid of Devres' inner Arc

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:27:18PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Thu Jun 26, 2025 at 12:01 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 09:13:24PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:54:01PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > +#[pin_data(PinnedDrop)]
> >> > +pub struct Devres<T> {
> >> 
> >> It makes me realize: I think we need to make `T` being `Send`? Because
> >> the devm callback can happen on a different thread other than
> >> `Devres::new()` and the callback may drop `T` because of revoke(), so we
> >> are essientially sending `T`. Alternatively we can make `Devres::new()`
> >> and its friend require `T` being `Send`.
> >> 
> >> If it's true, we need a separate patch that "Fixes" this.
> >
> > Indeed, that needs a fix.
> 
> Oh and we have no `'static` bound on `T` either... We should require
> that as well.

I don't think we actually need that, The Devres instance can't out-live a &T
passed into it. And the &T can't out-live the &Device<Bound>, hence we're
guaranteed that devres_callback() is never called because Devres::drop() will be
able successfully unregister the callback given that we're still in the
&Device<Bound> scope.

The only thing that could technically out-live the &Device<Bound> would be
&'static T, but that would obviously be fine.

Do I miss anything?