Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] rust: use strict provenance APIs

Boqun Feng
2025-03-17T20:46:23Z

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 04:35:42PM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:28 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 03:05:45PM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:50 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:17 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we should fix clippy or how we set msrv rather adding the stub.
> > > > > @Miguel?
> > > >
> > > > I filed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/14425.
> > >
> > > I don't think we can wait for that to be fixed, though. Usually clippy
> > > is distributed with rustc via rustup, so even if this is eventually
> > > fixed, all versions between 1.84.0 and the fix will need this
> > > workaround until MSRV is >= 1.84.0.
> >
> > We need to take one step back to evalute this "workaround".
> >
> > First, expose_provenance() and with_exposed_provenance{,_mut}() API are
> > clearly defined as equavilent to `as` operation [1]. Therefore, the
> > changes in this patch doing the conversion with expose_provenance() and
> > with_exposed_provenance{,_mut}() don't change anything related to
> > provenance in practice.
> >
> > I do agree we want to use the explicit provenance API, but I don't think
> > we want to introduce some API that we know we will change them latter
> > when we bump the rustc minimal version. So the question is: are these
> > stubs what we want even though in the future our minimal rustc version
> > stablizes provenance API? If not, then the cost of this patch cannot
> > justify its benefits IMO.
> >
> > Now let's also look into why we choose a msrv for clippy, I would guess
> > it's because we need to support all the versions of rustc starting at
> > 1.78 and we want clippy to report a problem based on 1.78 even though
> > we're using a higher version of rustc. But for this particular case, we
> > use a feature that has already been stablized in a higher version of
> > rustc, which means the problem reported by clippy doesn't help us, nor
> > does it provide better code. Frankly speaking, I think we have other
> > ways to ensure the support of all rustc versions without a msrv for
> > clippy. If I was to choose, I would simply drop the msrv. But maybe I'm
> > missing something.
> >
> > The point is tools should help us to write good and maintainable code,
> > we shouldn't introduce complicated structure of code just because some
> > tools fail to do its job.
> >
> > [1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ptr/fn.with_exposed_provenance_mut.html
>
> Even if we globally disable this clippy lint, we still need stubs
> because exposed_provenance was added in 1.79.0. Did your suggestion
> address this? Perhaps I missed it.

No, I didn't.

That's a separate topic though, because I can see the argument that:
because with_exposed_provenance() is a function rather than a method, it
won't be very benefical to use ptr::with_exposed_provenance() instead of
kernel::with_exposed_provenance(), therefor these stubs of
exposed_provenance make sense to exist. But I don't think the same
argument works for ptr::{with_,map_,}addr().

Regards,
Boqun