linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] rust: drm: remove pin annotations from drm::Device

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: <DBQGW0NIQJRX.MU0QD5GMFJYM@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 20:54:58 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>, <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 <vbabka@...e.cz>, <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, <urezki@...il.com>,
 <ojeda@...nel.org>, <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 <gary@...yguo.net>, <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
 <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, <mripard@...nel.org>,
 <tzimmermann@...e.de>, <airlied@...il.com>, <simona@...ll.ch>
Cc: <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rust: drm: remove pin annotations from drm::Device

On Thu Jul 31, 2025 at 5:48 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> The #[pin_data] and #[pin] annotations are not necessary for
> drm::Device, since we don't use any pin-init macros, but only
> __pinned_init() on the impl PinInit<T::Data, Error> argument of
> drm::Device::new().

But you're still pinning `Device`, right?

> Fixes: 1e4b8896c0f3 ("rust: drm: add device abstraction")
> Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
> ---
>  rust/kernel/drm/device.rs | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs b/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
> index d19410deaf6c..d0a9528121f1 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
> @@ -54,10 +54,8 @@ macro_rules! drm_legacy_fields {
>  ///
>  /// `self.dev` is a valid instance of a `struct device`.
>  #[repr(C)]
> -#[pin_data]
>  pub struct Device<T: drm::Driver> {
>      dev: Opaque<bindings::drm_device>,
> -    #[pin]
>      data: T::Data,

Looking at this code again, I also noticed that it was wrong before this
patch: `Device<T>` implemented `Unpin` if `T::Data` did which is most
likely wrong (or is `drm_device` not address sensitive?).

So good to see that fixed, thanks!

---
Cheers,
Benno

>  }
>