linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: sync: atomic: Clarify the need of CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC

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: <DFTKOAJE7DSB.1QJWJVC4FJY0O@garyguo.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 16:54:51 +0000
From: "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>
To: "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin"
 <lossin@...nel.org>, "Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice
 Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Danilo
 Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>, "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, "Peter
 Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>, "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, "Frederic Weisbecker"
 <frederic@...nel.org>, "Neeraj Upadhyay" <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
 "Joel Fernandes" <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, "Josh Triplett"
 <josh@...htriplett.org>, "Uladzislau Rezki" <urezki@...il.com>, "Steven
 Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Mathieu Desnoyers"
 <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, "Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
 "Zqiang" <qiang.zhang@...ux.dev>, "FUJITA Tomonori"
 <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, "Dirk Behme" <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>, "Dirk
 Behme" <dirk.behme@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rust: sync: atomic: Clarify the need of
 CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW

On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 2:05 PM GMT, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Currently, since all the architectures that support Rust all have
> CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW selected, the helpers of atomic
> load/store on i8 and i16 relies on CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW=y.
> It's generally fine since most of architectures support that.
>
> The plan for CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW=n architectures is adding
> their (probably lock-based) atomic load/store for i8 and i16 as their
> atomic_{read,set}() and atomic64_{read,set}() counterpart when they
> plans to support Rust.
>
> Hence use a statis_assert!() to check this and remind the future us the
> need of the helpers. This is more clear than the #[cfg] on impl blocks
> of i8 and i16.
>
> Suggested-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>
> Suggested-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>

Reviewed-by: Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>

> ---
>  rust/kernel/sync/atomic/internal.rs | 19 +++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/sync/atomic/internal.rs b/rust/kernel/sync/atomic/internal.rs
> index 0dac58bca2b3..ef516bcb02ee 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/sync/atomic/internal.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/sync/atomic/internal.rs
> @@ -37,16 +37,23 @@ pub trait AtomicImpl: Sized + Send + Copy + private::Sealed {
>      type Delta;
>  }
>  
> -// The current helpers of load/store uses `{WRITE,READ}_ONCE()` hence the atomicity is only
> -// guaranteed against read-modify-write operations if the architecture supports native atomic RmW.
> -#[cfg(CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW)]
> +// The current helpers of load/store of atomic `i8` and `i16` use `{WRITE,READ}_ONCE()` hence the
> +// atomicity is only guaranteed against read-modify-write operations if the architecture supports
> +// native atomic RmW.
> +//
> +// In the future when a CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW=n architecture plans to support Rust, the
> +// load/store helpers that guarantee atomicity against RmW operations (usually via a lock) need to
> +// be added.
> +crate::static_assert!(
> +    cfg!(CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW),
> +    "The current implementation of atomic i8/i16/ptr relies on the architecure being \
> +    ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW"

The printed string when assertion fails will have 5 spaces between "being" and
"ARCH", although it probably doesn't matter..

Best,
Gary

> +);
> +
>  impl AtomicImpl for i8 {
>      type Delta = Self;
>  }
>  
> -// The current helpers of load/store uses `{WRITE,READ}_ONCE()` hence the atomicity is only
> -// guaranteed against read-modify-write operations if the architecture supports native atomic RmW.
> -#[cfg(CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW)]
>  impl AtomicImpl for i16 {
>      type Delta = Self;
>  }