Re: [PATCH 2/3] rust: sync: add SetOnce::try_get_or_populate()

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rust: sync: add SetOnce::try_get_or_populate()

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 6:16 PM JST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> The SetOnce::populate() method does not internally synchronize callers
> that fail to populate the value with the successful call. This means
> that naive loops using as_ref() and populate() can lead to spinning on
> the initialization, which is best avoided. Thus, provide a helper that
> avoids this issue using a user-provided lock.
>
> One potential alternative is to change populate() so that the failing
> caller actually does synchronize with the successful call to populate().
> However, this is somewhat tricky:
>
> * There are users of SetOnce that construct it in const context, and we
>   currently don't have the ability to do that for most locks, so we
>   cannot easily add a lock to SetOnce.
> * Just spinning on the atomic is undesirable unless we disable
>   preemption in the success path. If we do disable preemption, then that
>   raises complications for handling the PREEMPT_RT case.
> * It also raises questions about deadlocks if populate() is called from
>   irqs.
>
> By using a user-provided lock, we do not have to worry about these
> issues inside SetOnce.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
> ---
>  rust/kernel/sync/set_once.rs | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/sync/set_once.rs b/rust/kernel/sync/set_once.rs
> index a78f8c8e87db..d9cc598a8d78 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/sync/set_once.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/sync/set_once.rs
> @@ -2,11 +2,18 @@
>  
>  //! A container that can be initialized at most once.
>  
> -use super::atomic::{
> -    ordering::{Acquire, Relaxed, Release},
> -    Atomic,
> -};
>  use core::{cell::UnsafeCell, mem::MaybeUninit};
> +use kernel::sync::{
> +    atomic::{
> +        ordering::{
> +            Acquire,
> +            Relaxed,
> +            Release, //
> +        },
> +        Atomic, //
> +    },
> +    lock, //
> +};
>  
>  /// A container that can be populated at most once. Thread safe.
>  ///
> @@ -104,6 +111,34 @@ pub fn populate(&self, value: T) -> Result<&T, T> {
>          }
>      }
>  
> +    /// Get the value, or populate it if it's missing.
> +    ///
> +    /// This method is useful to avoid spinning on the internal atomic state. If all writers call
> +    /// this method with the same lock, then they are synchronized with each other and it's
> +    /// guaranteed that no caller will attempt to invoke [`SetOnce::populate`] more than once.
> +    pub fn try_get_or_populate<F, E, U, B>(&self, lock: &lock::Lock<U, B>, f: F) -> Result<&T, E>

From the API perspective, this still leaves the option of calling the
method concurrently with different locks. What happens in this case?

> +    where
> +        B: lock::Backend,
> +        F: FnOnce() -> Result<T, E>,
> +    {
> +        if let Some(value) = self.as_ref() {
> +            return Ok(value);
> +        }
> +
> +        let mut to_insert = f()?;

This means that `f` can run more than once for a given `SetOnce`, which
can lead to problems depending on `f`'s' side-effects.

In the GEM shmem case, we would create a second `SGTableMap`, and since
`SGTableMap` assumes it is the sole owner, the last instance to drop
would create a use-after-free.

Now this sounds more like a problem with `SGTableMap`, but if we cannot
avoid calling `f` at least twice then I think it would help if this was
documented.

Re: [PATCH 2/3] rust: sync: add SetOnce::try_get_or_populate()

[Boqun Feng]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 11:05:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[...]
> > +    /// Get the value, or populate it if it's missing.
> > +    ///
> > +    /// This method is useful to avoid spinning on the internal atomic state. If all writers call
> > +    /// this method with the same lock, then they are synchronized with each other and it's
> > +    /// guaranteed that no caller will attempt to invoke [`SetOnce::populate`] more than once.
> > +    pub fn try_get_or_populate<F, E, U, B>(&self, lock: &lock::Lock<U, B>, f: F) -> Result<&T, E>
> 
> From the API perspective, this still leaves the option of calling the
> method concurrently with different locks. What happens in this case?
> 

Calling this function with different locks is not a correctness issue
(SetOnce::populate() already handle the synchronization). User may want
to synchronize different groups of writers with different locks.

Regards,
Boqun

> > +    where
> > +        B: lock::Backend,
> > +        F: FnOnce() -> Result<T, E>,
> > +    {
> > +        if let Some(value) = self.as_ref() {
> > +            return Ok(value);
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        let mut to_insert = f()?;
[...]

Re: [PATCH 1/3] rust: sync: return `Result<&T, T>` from `SetOnce::populate()`

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 6:16 PM JST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> When `populate()` succeeds, there's no way infallible way to get the
> value that was just inserted. By returning &T in this case, such
> infallible access methods become possible.
>
> Additionally, when `populate()` fails, the provided value is dropped.
> This has two disadvantages:
>
> 1. If the caller holds a lock, the value is dropped under said lock.
> 2. If the caller wishes to use the same value for something else, they
>    can't, because it's lost.
>
> Changing the return value to Result<&T, T> handles all of these cases.
>
> Rust Binder is updated to avoid a warning about an unused Result.

Does the GEM shmem module also need to be updated for the same reason?

Re: [PATCH 0/3] rust: sync: add SetOnce::try_get_or_populate()

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 6:16 PM JST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> The SetOnce::populate() method does not internally synchronize callers
> that fail to populate the value with the successful call. This means
> that naive loops using as_ref() and populate() can lead to spinning on
> the initialization, which is best avoided. Thus, provide a helper that
> avoids this issue using a user-provided lock.
>
> One potential alternative is to change populate() so that the failing
> caller actually does synchronize with the successful call to populate().
> However, this is somewhat tricky:
>
> * There are users of SetOnce that construct it in const context, and we
>   currently don't have the ability to do that for most locks, so we
>   cannot easily add a lock to SetOnce.
> * Just spinning on the atomic is undesirable unless we disable
>   preemption in the success path. If we do disable preemption, then that
>   raises complications for handling the PREEMPT_RT case.
> * It also raises questions about deadlocks if populate() is called from
>   irqs.
>
> By using a user-provided lock, we do not have to worry about these
> issues inside SetOnce.
>
> This series is based on char-misc-next.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>

If would be nice if the series could also include a patch updating the
GEM shmem module, which is another potential user of
`try_get_or_populate` - in particular since the current implementation
doesn't seem to be a perfect match yet (see my comments on patch 2) so
it would be an opportunity to refine it.