[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ikdej4s1.fsf@t14s.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 13:37:34 +0100
From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, fujita.tomonori@...il.com
Cc: aliceryhl@...gle.com, lyude@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, richard.henderson@...aro.org,
mattst88@...il.com, linmag7@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
ojeda@...nel.org, gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
lossin@...nel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu, dakr@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, frederic@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
anna-maria@...utronix.de, jstultz@...gle.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] rust: hrtimer: use READ_ONCE instead of read_volatile
"FUJITA Tomonori" <fujita.tomonori@...il.com> writes:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:11:23 +0900 (JST)
> FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 12:22:28 +0000
>> Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Using `READ_ONCE` is the correct way to read the `node.expires` field.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
>>> ---
>>> rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs | 8 +++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs b/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs
>>> index 856d2d929a00892dc8eaec63cebdf547817953d3..e2b7a26f8aade972356c3eb5f6489bcda3e2e849 100644
>>> --- a/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs
>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs
>>> @@ -239,11 +239,9 @@ pub fn expires(&self) -> HrTimerInstant<T>
>>> // - Timers cannot have negative ktime_t values as their expiration time.
>>> // - There's no actual locking here, a racy read is fine and expected
>>> unsafe {
>>> - Instant::from_ktime(
>>> - // This `read_volatile` is intended to correspond to a READ_ONCE call.
>>> - // FIXME(read_once): Replace with `read_once` when available on the Rust side.
>>> - core::ptr::read_volatile(&raw const ((*c_timer_ptr).node.expires)),
>>> - )
>>> + Instant::from_ktime(kernel::sync::READ_ONCE(
>>> + &raw const (*c_timer_ptr).node.expires,
>>> + ))
>>> }
>>
>> Do we actually need READ_ONCE() here? I'm not sure but would it be
>> better to call the C-side API?
>>
>> diff --git a/rust/helpers/time.c b/rust/helpers/time.c
>> index 67a36ccc3ec4..73162dea2a29 100644
>> --- a/rust/helpers/time.c
>> +++ b/rust/helpers/time.c
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/delay.h>
>> #include <linux/ktime.h>
>> +#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>> #include <linux/timekeeping.h>
>>
>> void rust_helper_fsleep(unsigned long usecs)
>> @@ -38,3 +39,8 @@ void rust_helper_udelay(unsigned long usec)
>> {
>> udelay(usec);
>> }
>> +
>> +__rust_helper ktime_t rust_helper_hrtimer_get_expires(const struct hrtimer *timer)
>> +{
>> + return timer->node.expires;
>> +}
>
> Sorry, of course this should be:
>
> +__rust_helper ktime_t rust_helper_hrtimer_get_expires(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> +{
> + return hrtimer_get_expires(timer);
> +}
>
This is a potentially racy read. As far as I recall, we determined that
using read_once is the proper way to handle the situation.
I do not think it makes a difference that the read is done by C code.
Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists