linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] rust: clk: use the type-state pattern

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DGCAAE4YEDLO.299F5M641E90B@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 17:47:09 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>, "Daniel Almeida"
 <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Viresh Kumar"
 <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, "Maarten Lankhorst"
 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, "Thomas Zimmermann"
 <tzimmermann@...e.de>, "David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>, "Simona Vetter"
 <simona@...ll.ch>, "Drew Fustini" <fustini@...nel.org>, "Guo Ren"
 <guoren@...nel.org>, "Fu Wei" <wefu@...hat.com>,
 Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>, "Michael
 Turquette" <mturquette@...libre.com>, "Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
 "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>, "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>, "Andreas
 Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
 <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] rust: clk: use the type-state pattern

On Wed Feb 11, 2026 at 5:37 PM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> I do think we can find a compromise though. Miguel suggested for example
> to make the current enable/prepare/disable/unprepare function unsafe,
> and that's totally reasonable to me.
>
> Then we can implement the "managed" clock version on that unsafe API,

What do you mean with "managed" clock? Do you mean devres managed? If so, I
don't think there is any reason to switch to the unsafe API to be able to
implement devres managed APIs (see also [1]).

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/DFVW9MS5YLON.CVJDBYQKJ0P6@kernel.org/

> and we would end up with a "raw", unsafe, version kind of equivalent to
> the one we have today, and where callers would have to justify why their
> usage of the API is actually safe, or the new, managed, variant that is
> safe and can be easily used by most drivers.
>
> And we can call these RawClk vs Clk, or Clk vs ManagedClk, or whatever.
>
> How does that sound?

What about we just wait until we have a user that really requires an unsafe API
for some reason? And if it never appears, even better. :)