[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20231212.084753.1364639100103922268.fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:47:53 +0900 (JST)
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
To: boqun.feng@...il.com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@...il.com, alice@...l.io, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, tmgross@...ch.edu,
miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
wedsonaf@...il.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 1/4] rust: core abstractions for network
PHY drivers
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:40:33 -0800
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:15:05AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> [...]
>> >> + /// Reads a given C22 PHY register.
>> >> + // This function reads a hardware register and updates the stats so
>> >> takes `&mut self`.
>> >> + pub fn read(&mut self, regnum: u16) -> Result<u16> {
>> >> + let phydev = self.0.get();
>> >> + // SAFETY: `phydev` is pointing to a valid object by the type
>> >> invariant of `Self`.
>> >> + // So an FFI call with a valid pointer.
>> >
>> > This sentence also doesn't parse in my brain. Perhaps "So it's just an
>> > FFI call" or similar?
>>
>> "So it's just an FFI call" looks good. I'll fix all the places that
>> use the same comment.
>
> I would also mention that `(*phydev).mdio.addr` is smaller than
> PHY_MAX_ADDR (per C side invariants in mdio maybe), since otherwise
> mdiobus_read() would cause out-of-bound accesses at ->stats. The safety
> comments are supposed to describe why calling the C function won't cause
> memory safety issues..
(*phydev).mdio.addr is managed in the C side and Rust code doesn't
touch it (doesn't need to know anything about it). What safety comment
should be written here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists