Re: [PATCH v2] rust: zpool: add abstraction for zpool drivers

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Thu Aug 21, 2025 at 2:03 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu Aug 21, 2025 at 1:17 PM CEST, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>> +    /// preferred NUMA node `nid`. If the allocation is successful, an opaque handle is returned.
>> +    fn malloc(
>> +        pool: <Self::Pool as ForeignOwnable>::BorrowedMut<'_>,
>> +        size: usize,
>> +        gfp: Flags,
>> +        nid: NumaNode,
>> +    ) -> Result<usize>;
>
> I still think we need a proper type representation of a zpool handle that
> guarantees validity and manages its lifetime.
>
> For instance, what prevents a caller from calling write() with a random handle?
>
> Looking at zsmalloc(), if I call write() with a random number, I will most
> likely oops the kernel. This is not acceptable for safe APIs.
>
> Alternatively, all those trait functions have to be unsafe, which would be very
> unfortunate.

I just noticed that I confused something here. :)

So, for the backend driver this trait is obviously fine, since you have to implement
the C ops -- sorry for the confusion.

However, you still have to mark all functions except alloc() and total_pages()
as unsafe and document and justify the corresponding safety requirements.

>> +    /// Free a previously allocated from the `pool` object, represented by `handle`.
>> +    fn free(pool: <Self::Pool as ForeignOwnable>::Borrowed<'_>, handle: usize);
>
> What happens if I forget to call free()?
>
>> +    /// Make all the necessary preparations for the caller to be able to read from the object
>> +    /// represented by `handle` and return a valid pointer to the `handle` memory to be read.
>> +    fn read_begin(pool: <Self::Pool as ForeignOwnable>::Borrowed<'_>, handle: usize)
>> +        -> NonNull<u8>;
>
> Same for this, making it a NonNull<u8> is better than a *mut c_void, but it's
> still a raw pointer. Nothing prevents users from using this raw pointer after
> read_end() has been called.
>
> This needs a type representation that only lives until read_end().
>
> In general, I think this design doesn't really work out well. I think the design
> should be something along the lines of:
>
>   (1) We should only provide alloc() on the Zpool itself and which returns a
>       Zmem instance. A Zmem instance must not outlive the Zpool it was allocated
>       with.
>
>   (2) Zmem should call free() when it is dropped. It should provide read_begin()
>       and write() methods.
>
>   (3) Zmem::read_begin() should return a Zslice which must not outlive Zmem and
>       calls read_end() when dropped.

This design is obiously for when you want to use a Zpool, but not implement its
backend. :)