linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] rust: irq: add support for non-threaded IRQs and handlers

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: <aGgDpWkU6xAn5IFN@Mac.home>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:39:01 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
	Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	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>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Krzysztof Wilczy´nski <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] rust: irq: add support for non-threaded IRQs and
 handlers

On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 04:30:01PM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote:
[...]
> +#[pin_data]
> +pub struct Registration<T: Handler + 'static> {
> +    #[pin]
> +    inner: Devres<RegistrationInner>,
> +
> +    #[pin]
> +    handler: T,

IIRC, as a certain point, we want this to be a `UnsafePinned<T>`, is
that requirement gone or we still need that but 1) `UnsafePinned` is not
available and 2) we can rely on the whole struct being !Unpin for the
address stability temporarily?

I think it was not a problem until we switched to `try_pin_init!()`
instead of `pin_init_from_closure()` because we then had to pass the
address of `handler` instead of the whole struct.

Since we certainly want to use `try_pin_init!()` and we certainly will
have `UnsafePinned`, I think we should just keep this as it is for now,
and add a TODO so that we can clean it up later when we have
`UnsafePinned`?

Thoughts?

Regards,
Boqun