Re: [PATCH 1/3] rust: revocable: implement Revocable::access()

Boqun Feng
2025-04-26T16:55:02Z

On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Christian Schrefl wrote:
> On 26.04.25 3:30 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > Implement an unsafe direct accessor for the data stored within the
> > Revocable.
> >
> > This is useful for cases where we can proof that the data stored within
> > the Revocable is not and cannot be revoked for the duration of the
> > lifetime of the returned reference.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > The explicit lifetimes in access() probably don't serve a practical
> > purpose, but I found them to be useful for documentation purposes.
> > ---> rust/kernel/revocable.rs | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > index 971d0dc38d83..33535de141ce 100644
> > --- a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > @@ -139,6 +139,18 @@ pub fn try_access_with<R, F: FnOnce(&T) -> R>(&self, f: F) -> Option<R> {
> > self.try_access().map(|t| f(&*t))
> > }
> >
> > + /// Directly access the revocable wrapped object.
> > + ///
> > + /// # Safety
> > + ///
> > + /// The caller must ensure this [`Revocable`] instance hasn't been revoked and won't be revoked
> > + /// for the duration of `'a`.
> > + pub unsafe fn access<'a, 's: 'a>(&'s self) -> &'a T {
> I'm not sure if the `'s` lifetime really carries much meaning here.
> I find just (explicit) `'a` on both parameter and return value is clearer to me,
> but I'm not sure what others (particularly those not very familiar with rust)
> think of this.

Yeah, I don't think we need two lifetimes here, the following version
should be fine (with implicit lifetime):

pub unsafe fn access(&self) -> &T { ... }

, because if you do:

let revocable: &'1 Revocable = ...;
...
let t: &'2 T = unsafe { revocable.access() };

'1 should already outlive '2 (i.e. '1: '2).

Regards,
Boqun

>
> Either way:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Schrefl <chrisi.schrefl@gmail.com>
>
> > + // SAFETY: By the safety requirement of this function it is guaranteed that
> > + // `self.data.get()` is a valid pointer to an instance of `T`.
> > + unsafe { &*self.data.get() }
> > + }
> > +
> > /// # Safety
> > ///
> > /// Callers must ensure that there are no more concurrent users of the revocable object.
>