[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bjq4xpv7.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 10:43:56 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...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>, "Alice
Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Masahiro Yamada" <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@...nel.org>, "Luis Chamberlain"
<mcgrof@...nel.org>, "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>, "Nicolas
Schier" <nicolas.schier@...ux.dev>, "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
"Adam Bratschi-Kaye" <ark.email@...il.com>,
<rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, "Petr Pavlu" <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
"Sami Tolvanen" <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, "Daniel Gomez"
<da.gomez@...sung.com>, "Simona Vetter" <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>, "Greg
KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Fiona Behrens" <me@...enk.dev>,
"Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
<linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/6] rust: introduce module_param module
"Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org> writes:
> On Mon Jun 30, 2025 at 3:15 PM CEST, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org> writes:
>>> On Mon Jun 30, 2025 at 1:18 PM CEST, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>>>> "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org> writes:
>>>>> (no idea if the orderings are correct, I always have to think way to
>>>>> much about that... especially since our atomics seem to only take one
>>>>> ordering in compare_exchange?)
>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can tell, atomics may not land in v6.17, so this series
>>>>>> will probably not be ready for merge until v6.18 at the earliest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, sorry about that :(
>>>>
>>>> Actually, perhaps we could aim at merging this code without this
>>>> synchronization?
>>>
>>> I won't remember this issue in a few weeks and I fear that it will just
>>> get buried. In fact, I already had to re-read now what the actual issue
>>> was...
>>>
>>>> The lack of synchronization is only a problem if we
>>>> support custom parsing. This patch set does not allow custom parsing
>>>> code, so it does not suffer this issue.
>>>
>>> ... In doing that, I saw my original example of UB:
>>>
>>> module! {
>>> // ...
>>> params: {
>>> my_param: i64 {
>>> default: 0,
>>> description: "",
>>> },
>>> },
>>> }
>>>
>>> static BAD: &'static i64 = module_parameters::my_param.get();
>>>
>>> That can happen without custom parsing, so it's still a problem...
>>
>> Ah, got it. Thanks.
>
> On second thought, we *could* just make the accessor function `unsafe`.
> Of course with a pinky promise to make the implementation safe once
> atomics land. But I think if it helps you get your driver faster along,
> then we should do it.
No, I am OK for now with configfs.
But, progress is still great. How about if we add a copy accessor
instead for now, I think you proposed that a few million emails ago:
pub fn get(&self) -> T;
or maybe rename:
pub fn copy(&self) -> T;
Then we are fine safety wise for now, right? It is even sensible for
these `T: Copy` types.
Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists