Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Rust null block driver

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 05:24:56AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 12:53:41PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:22 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, but that doesn't really solve the problem when the rust bindings
> > > get in the way of changes that you are currently making. Or if you break
> > > them inadvertently. I do see benefits to that approach, but it's no
> > > panacea.
> 
> One thing I want to point out is: not having a block layer Rust API
> doesn't keep the block layer away from Rust ;-) Rust will get in the way
> as long as block layer is used, directly or indirectly, in any Rust code
> in kernel.
> 
> Take the M1 GPU driver for example, it can totally be done without a drm
> Rust API: Lina will have to directly call C funciton in her GPU driver,
> but it's possible or she can have her own drm Rust binding which is not
> blessed by the drm maintainers. But as long as drm is used in a Rust
> driver, a refactoring/improvement of drm will need to take the usage of
> Rust side into consideration. Unless of course, some one is willing to
> write a C driver for M1 GPU.
> 
> The Rust bindings are actually the way of communication between
> subsystem mantainers and Rust driver writers, and can help reduce the
> amount of work: You can have the abstraction the way you like.
> 
> Of course, there is always "don't do it until there are actually users",
> and I totally agree with that. But what is a better way to design the
> Rust binding for a subsystem?
> 
> *	Sit down and use the wisdom of maintainers and active
> 	developers, and really spend time on it right now? Or
> 
> *	Let one future user drag the API/binding design to insaneness?
> 

Ah, of course, I should add: this is not the usual case, most of the
time, users (e.g. a real driver) can help the design, I was just trying
to say: without the wisdom of maintainers and active developers, a Rust
binding solely designed by one user could have some design issues. In
other words, the experience of maintaining C side API is very valuable
to design Rust bindings.

Regards,
Boqun

> I'd rather prefer the first approach. Time spent is time saved.
> 
> Personally, my biggest fear is: RCU stalls/lockdep warnings in the Rust
> code (or they don't happen because incorrect bindings), and who is going
> to fix them ;-) So I have to spend my time on making sure these bindings
> in good shapes, which is not always a pleasant experience: the more you
> use something, the more you hate it ;-) But I think it's worth.
> 
> Of course, by no means I want to force anyone to learn Rust, I totally
> understand people who want to see zero Rust. Just want to say the
> maintain burden may exist any way, and the Rust binding is actually the
> thing to help here.
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > >
> > > This seems to assume that time is plentiful and we can just add more to
> > > our plate, which isn't always true. While I'd love to do more rust and
> > > get more familiar with it, the time still has to be there for that. I'm
> > > actually typing this on a laptop with a rust gpu driver :-)
> > >
> > > And this isn't just on me, there are other regular contributors and
> > > reviewers that would need to be onboard with this.
> > 
> > Indeed -- I didn't mean to imply it wouldn't be time consuming, only
> > that it might be an alternative approach compared to having existing
> > maintainers do it. Of course, it depends on the dynamics of the
> > subsystem, how busy the subsystem is, whether there is good rapport,
> > etc.
> > 
> > > Each case is different though, different people and different schedules
> > > and priorities. So while the above is promising, it's also just
> > > annecdotal and doesn't necessarily apply to our case.
> > 
> > Definitely, in the end subsystems know best if there is enough time
> > available (from everybody) to pull it off. I only meant to say that
> > the security angle is not the only benefit.
> > 
> > For instance, like you said, the error handling, plus a bunch more
> > that people usually enjoy: stricter typing, more information on
> > signatures, sum types, pattern matching, privacy, closures, generics,
> > etc.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Miguel