Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] rust: sync: atomic: Add generic atomics

Benno Lossin
2025-07-04T22:05:55Z

On Fri Jul 4, 2025 at 11:22 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 03:54:24PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Tue Jun 24, 2025 at 6:35 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 01:27:38AM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> >> On Mon Jun 23, 2025 at 9:09 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 07:30:19PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
>> >> >> cannot just transmute between from pointers to usize (which is its
>> >> >> Repr):
>> >> >> * Transmuting from pointer to usize discards provenance
>> >> >> * Transmuting from usize to pointer gives invalid provenance
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We want neither behaviour, so we must store `usize` directly and
>> >> >> always call into repr functions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If we store `usize`, how can we support the `get_mut()` then? E.g.
>> >> >
>> >> > static V: i32 = 32;
>> >> >
>> >> > let mut x = Atomic::new(&V as *const i32 as *mut i32);
>> >> > // ^ assume we expose_provenance() in new().
>> >> >
>> >> > let ptr: &mut *mut i32 = x.get_mut(); // which is `&mut self.0.get()`.
>> >> >
>> >> > let ptr_val = *ptr; // Does `ptr_val` have the proper provenance?
>> >>
>> >> If `get_mut` transmutes the integer into a pointer, then it will have
>> >> the wrong provenance (it will just have plain invalid provenance).
>> >>
>> >
>> > The key topic Gary and I have been discussing is whether we should
>> > define Atomic<T> as:
>> >
>> > (my current implementation)
>> >
>> > pub struct Atomic<T: AllowAtomic>(Opaque<T>);
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > (Gary's suggestion)
>> >
>> > pub struct Atomic<T: AllowAtomic>(Opaque<T::Repr>);
>> >
>> > `T::Repr` is guaranteed to be the same size and alignment of `T`, and
>> > per our discussion, it makes sense to further require that `transmute<T,
>> > T::Repr>()` should also be safe (as the safety requirement of
>> > `AllowAtomic`), or we can say `T` bit validity can be preserved by
>> > `T::Repr`: a valid bit combination `T` can be transumated to `T::Repr`,
>> > and if transumated back, it's the same bit combination.
>> >
>> > Now as I pointed out, if we use `Opaque<T::Repr>`, then `.get_mut()`
>> > would be unsound for `Atomic<*mut T>`. And Gary's concern is that in
>> > the current implementation, we directly cast a `*mut T` (from
>> > `Opaque::get()`) into a `*mut T::Repr`, and pass it directly into C/asm
>> > atomic primitives. However, I think with the additional safety
>> > requirement above, this shouldn't be a problem: because the C/asm atomic
>> > primitives would just pass the address to an asm block, and that'll be
>> > out of Rust abstract machine, and as long as the C/primitives atomic
>> > primitives are implemented correctly, the bit representation of `T`
>> > remains valid after asm blocks.
>> >
>> > So I think the current implementation still works and is better.
>>
>> I don't think there is a big difference between `Opaque<T>` and
>> `Opaque<T::Repr>` if we have the transmute equivalence between the two.
>> From a safety perspective, you don't gain or lose anything by using the
>> first over the second one. They both require the invariant that they are
>> valid (as `Opaque` removes that... we should really be using
>> `UnsafeCell` here instead... why aren't we doing that?).
>>
>
> I need the `UnsafePinned`-like behavior of `Atomic<*mut T>` to support
> Rcu<T>, and I will replace it with `UnsafePinned`, once that's is
> available.

Can you expand on this? What do you mean by "`UnsafePinned`-like
behavior"? And what does `Rcu<T>` have to do with atomics?

> Maybe that also means `UnsafePinned<T>` make more sense? Because if `T`
> is a pointer, it's easy to prove the provenance is there. (Note a
> `&Atomic<*mut T>` may come from a `*mut *mut T`, may be a field in C
> struct)

Also don't understand this.

---
Cheers,
Benno