[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DB9FUEJUOH3L.14CYPZ8YQT52E@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 20:30:31 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.com>,
<rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, "Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>, "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>, "Andreas
Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
"Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"John Hubbard" <jhubbard@...dia.com>, "Alexandre Courbot"
<acourbot@...dia.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: Update PCI binding safety comments and add
inline compiler hint
On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 5:02 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 10:01 AM CEST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 4:24 AM CEST, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
>>> index 8435f8132e38..5c35a66a5251 100644
>>> --- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
>>> @@ -371,14 +371,18 @@ fn as_raw(&self) -> *mut bindings::pci_dev {
>>>
>>> impl Device {
>>> /// Returns the PCI vendor ID.
>>> + #[inline]
>>> pub fn vendor_id(&self) -> u16 {
>>> - // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
>>> + // SAFETY: by its type invariant `self.as_raw` is always a valid pointer to a
>>
>> s/by its type invariant/by the type invariants of `Self`,/
>> s/always//
>>
>> Also, which invariant does this refer to? The only one that I can see
>> is:
>>
>> /// A [`Device`] instance represents a valid `struct device` created by the C portion of the kernel.
>>
>> And this doesn't say anything about the validity of `self.as_raw()`...
>
> Hm...why not? If an instance of Self always represents a valid struct pci_dev,
> then consequently self.as_raw() can only be a valid pointer to a struct pci_dev,
> no?
While it's true, you need to look into the implementation of `as_raw`.
It could very well return a null pointer...
This is where we can use a `Guarantee` on that function. But since it's
not shorter than `.0.get()`, I would just remove it.
---
Cheers,
Benno
Powered by blists - more mailing lists