Re: [PATCH 03/13] rust: lock: introduce `Mutex`

[Gary Guo]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 10:50:09 -0300
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 10:20:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:47:12AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:  
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 03:01:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:  
> > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 01:39:44AM -0300, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:  
> > > > > From: Wedson Almeida Filho <walmeida@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is the `struct mutex` lock backend and allows Rust code to use the
> > > > > kernel mutex idiomatically.  
> > > > 
> > > > What, if anything, are the plans to support the various lockdep
> > > > annotations? Idem for the spinlock thing in the other patch I suppose.  
> > > 
> > > FWIW:
> > > 
> > > *	At the init stage, SpinLock and Mutex in Rust use initializers
> > > 	that are aware of the lockdep, so everything (lockdep_map and
> > > 	lock_class) is all set up.
> > > 
> > > *	At acquire or release time, Rust locks just use ffi to call C
> > > 	functions that have lockdep annotations in them, so lockdep
> > > 	should just work.
> > >   
> > 
> > ffi is what the C++ world calls RAII ?  
> 
> No, ffi is 'foreign function interface', it just means that the caller will use
> the same ABI as the callee.
> 
> > But yes, I got that far, but I wondered about things like
> > spin_lock_nested(&foo, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING) and other such 'advanced'
> > annotations.
> > 
> > Surely we're going to be needing them at some point. I suppose you can
> > do the single depth nesting one with a special guard type (or whatever
> > you call that in the rust world) ?  
> 
> I haven't looked at all the advanced annotations, but something like
> spin_lock_nested/mutex_lock_nested can be exposed as a lock_nested() associated
> function of the `Lock` type, so one would do:
> 
>   let guard = my_mutex.lock_nested(SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>   // Do something with data protected by my_mutex.

I don't think an additional function would work. It's not okay to
perform both nested locking and non-nested locking on the same lock
because non-nested locking will give you a mutable reference, and
getting another reference from nested lock guard would violate aliasing
rules.

A new lock type would be needed for nested locking, and guard of it can
only hand out immutable reference.

Best,
Gary