Re: [PATCH 2/5] rust: device: Add a minimal RawDevice trait

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>]

On 2023-02-24 14:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed rust explainations, I'd like to just highlight
> one thing:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:15:12PM +0900, Asahi Lina wrote:
>> On 24/02/2023 20.23, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> And again, why are bindings needed for a "raw" struct device at all?
>>> Shouldn't the bus-specific wrappings work better?
>>
>> Because lots of kernel subsystems need to be able to accept "any" device
>> and don't care about the bus! That's what this is for.
> 
> That's great, but:
> 
>> All the bus
>> wrappers would implement this so they can be used as an argument for all
>> those subsystems (plus a generic one when you just need to pass around
>> an actual owned generic reference and no longer need bus-specific
>> operations - you can materialize that out of a RawDevice impl, which is
>> when get_device() would be called). That's why I'm introducing this now,
>> because both io_pgtable and rtkit need to take `struct device` pointers
>> on the C side so we need some "generic struct device" view on the Rust side.
> 
> In looking at both ftkit and io_pgtable, those seem to be good examples
> of how "not to use a struct device", so trying to make safe bindings
> from Rust to these frameworks is very ironic :)
> 
> rtkit takes a struct device pointer and then never increments it,
> despite saving it off, which is unsafe.  It then only uses it to print
> out messages if things go wrong (or right in some cases), which is odd.
> So it can get away from using a device pointer entirely, except for the
> devm_apple_rtkit_init() call, which I doubt you want to call from rust
> code, right?
> 
> for io_pgtable, that's a bit messier, you want to pass in a device that
> io_pgtable treats as a "device" but again, it is NEVER properly
> reference counted, AND, it is only needed to try to figure out the bus
> operations that dma memory should be allocated from for this device.  So
> what would be better to save off there would be a pointer to the bus,
> which is constant and soon will be read-only so there are no lifetime
> rules needed at all (see the major struct bus_type changes going into
> 6.3-rc1 that will enable that to happen).

FWIW the DMA API *has* to know which specific device it's operating 
with, since the relevant properties can and do vary even between 
different devices within a single bus_type (e.g. DMA masks).

In the case of io-pgtable at least, there's no explicit refcounting 
since the struct device must be the one representing the physical 
platform/PCI/etc. device consuming the pagetable, so if that were to 
disappear from underneath its driver while the pagetable is still in 
use, things would already have gone very very wrong indeed :)

Cheers,
Robin.

> So the two subsystems you want to call from rust code don't properly
> handle the reference count of the object you are going to pass into it,
> and only need it for debugging and iommu stuff, which is really only the
> bus that the device is on, not good examples to start out with :)
> 
> Yeah, this is yack-shaving, sorry, but it's how we clean up core
> subsystems for apis and implementations that are not really correct and
> were not noticed at the time.
> 
> Can we see some users of this code posted so I can see how struct device
> is going to work in a rust driver?  That's the thing I worry most about
> the rust/C interaction here as we have two different ways of thinking
> about reference counts from the two worlds and putting them together is
> going to be "interesting", as can be seen here already.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h