public inbox for linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux-foundation.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marcelo Moreira <marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com>
To: aliceryhl@google.com, lossin@kernel.org, dakr@kernel.org,
	ojeda@kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org,
	skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	~lkcamp/patches@lists.sr.ht
Subject: [PATCH v8 1/3] rust: revocable: Clarify write invariant and update safety comments
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:35:01 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250726183552.23098-2-marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250726183552.23098-1-marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com>

Clarifies the write invariant of the `Revocabl` type and
updates associated `SAFETY` comments. The write invariant now precisely
states that `data` is valid for writes after `is_available` transitions
from true to false, provided no thread holding an RCU read-side lock
(acquired before the change) still has access to `data`.

The `SAFETY` comment in `try_access_with_guard` is updated to reflect
this invariant, and the `PinnedDrop` `drop` implementation's `SAFETY`
comment is refined to clearly state the guarantees provided by the `&mut Self`
context regarding exclusive access and `data`'s validity for dropping.

Reported-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1160
Suggested-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Marcelo Moreira <marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com>
---
 rust/kernel/revocable.rs | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
index 1cd4511f0260..2dfee25240a0 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
@@ -61,6 +61,15 @@
 /// v.revoke();
 /// assert_eq!(add_two(&v), None);
 /// ```
+///
+/// # Invariants
+///
+/// - `data` is valid for reads in two cases:
+///   - while `is_available` is true, or
+///   - while the RCU read-side lock is taken and it was acquired while `is_available` was `true`.
+/// - `data` is valid for writes when `is_available` was atomically changed from `true` to `false`
+///   and no thread that has access to `data` is holding an RCU read-side lock that was acquired
+///   prior to the change in `is_available`.
 #[pin_data(PinnedDrop)]
 pub struct Revocable<T> {
     is_available: AtomicBool,
@@ -115,8 +124,8 @@ pub fn try_access(&self) -> Option<RevocableGuard<'_, T>> {
     /// object.
     pub fn try_access_with_guard<'a>(&'a self, _guard: &'a rcu::Guard) -> Option<&'a T> {
         if self.is_available.load(Ordering::Relaxed) {
-            // SAFETY: Since `self.is_available` is true, data is initialised and has to remain
-            // valid because the RCU read side lock prevents it from being dropped.
+            // SAFETY: `self.data` is valid for reads because of `Self`'s type invariants,
+            // as `self.is_available` is true and `_guard` holds the RCU read-side lock.
             Some(unsafe { &*self.data.get() })
         } else {
             None
@@ -214,9 +223,10 @@ fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
         // SAFETY: We are not moving out of `p`, only dropping in place
         let p = unsafe { self.get_unchecked_mut() };
         if *p.is_available.get_mut() {
-            // SAFETY: We know `self.data` is valid because no other CPU has changed
-            // `is_available` to `false` yet, and no other CPU can do it anymore because this CPU
-            // holds the only reference (mutable) to `self` now.
+            // SAFETY:
+            // - `self.data` is valid for writes because of `Self`'s type invariants:
+            //   `&mut Self` guarantees exclusive access, so no other thread can concurrently access `data`.
+            // - this function is a drop function, thus this code is at most executed once.
             unsafe { drop_in_place(p.data.get()) };
         }
     }
-- 
2.50.1


  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-26 18:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-26 18:35 [PATCH v8 0/3] rust: revocable: Documentation, refactoring and safety refinements Marcelo Moreira
2025-07-26 18:35 ` Marcelo Moreira [this message]
2025-07-26 18:35 ` [PATCH v8 2/3] rust: revocable: Refactor revocation mechanism to remove generic revoke_internal Marcelo Moreira
2025-07-26 18:35 ` [PATCH v8 3/3] rust: revocable: Documents RevocableGuard invariants/safety and refine Deref safety Marcelo Moreira
2025-08-12  1:03   ` Marcelo Moreira
2025-11-03 10:36   ` Benno Lossin
2025-08-18 22:07 ` [PATCH v8 0/3] rust: revocable: Documentation, refactoring and safety refinements Marcelo Moreira

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250726183552.23098-2-marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com \
    --to=marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com \
    --cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
    --cc=dakr@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=lossin@kernel.org \
    --cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
    --cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=~lkcamp/patches@lists.sr.ht \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox