Re: [PATCH v3] rust: xarray: Add an abstraction for XArray

From: Asahi Lina
Date: Tue Apr 11 2023 - 11:55:35 EST


On 04/04/2023 23.25, Gary Guo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 19:14:23 +0900
Asahi Lina <lina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The XArray is an abstract data type which behaves like a very large
array of pointers. Add a Rust abstraction for this data type.

The initial implementation uses explicit locking on get operations and
returns a guard which blocks mutation, ensuring that the referenced
object remains alive. To avoid excessive serialization, users are
expected to use an inner type that can be efficiently cloned (such as
Arc<T>), and eagerly clone and drop the guard to unblock other users
after a lookup.

Future variants may support using RCU instead to avoid mutex locking.

This abstraction also introduces a reservation mechanism, which can be
used by alloc-capable XArrays to reserve a free slot without immediately
filling it, and then do so at a later time. If the reservation is
dropped without being filled, the slot is freed again for other users,
which eliminates the need for explicit cleanup code.

Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <lina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

Hi everyone!

This abstraction is part of the set of dependencies for the drm/asahi
Apple M1/M2 GPU driver.

The branch at [1] contains the full series of patches rebased on
upstream leading to the complete driver, for reference on how it is
intended to be used.

Thank you everyone who helped review this on GitHub [2]! I hope I didn't
forget any CCs...

Note that I dropped the convenience `Deref` impl for `Guard`, since I
couldn't figure out how to do it safely. Suggestions welcome, or we can
leave it for a future improvement ^^

[1] https://github.com/AsahiLinux/linux/tree/gpu/rebase-20230224
[2] https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/pull/952

Changes in v3:
- Updated to the error v2/v3 series API.
- Renamed `err` to `ret` for consistency with the other instance.
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230224-rust-xarray-v2-1-4eeb0134944c@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Changes in v2:
- Added Pin requirement for all XArray operations, to close a
soundness hole due to the lock in the XArray (locks are not safe to
move while locked). Creation does not require pinning in place, since
the lock cannot be acquired at that point.
- Added safety note to Drop impl about why we don't need to do the lock
unlock dance to ensure soundness in case of a dropped lock guard.
- Downstream drm/asahi driver was also rebased on this version to prove
it works (previously it was still on a pre-v1 version).
- This still depends on the Error series (v1). v2 of that will need a
trivial rename of Error::from_kernel_errno -> Error::from_errno. If
this version of XArray ends up looking good, I'll send a trivial v4 of
XArray with the rename, after sending the v2 of the Error series.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230224-rust-xarray-v1-1-80f0904ce5d3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
rust/bindings/bindings_helper.h | 17 +++
rust/helpers.c | 37 +++++
rust/kernel/lib.rs | 1 +
rust/kernel/xarray.rs | 302 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 357 insertions(+)

[snip]
+ /// Replaces an entry with a new value, returning the old value (if any).
+ pub fn replace(self: Pin<&Self>, index: usize, value: T) -> Result<Option<T>> {
+ let new = value.into_foreign();
+ // SAFETY: `new` just came from into_foreign(), and we dismiss this guard if
+ // the xa_store operation succeeds and takes ownership of the pointer.
+ let guard = ScopeGuard::new(|| unsafe {
+ T::from_foreign(new);
+ });
+
+ // SAFETY: `self.xa` is always valid by the type invariant, and we are storing
+ // a `T::into_foreign()` result which upholds the later invariants.
+ let old = unsafe {
+ bindings::xa_store(
+ self.xa.get(),
+ index.try_into()?,
+ new as *mut _,
+ bindings::GFP_KERNEL,
+ )
+ };

XArray's doc says the pointer must be 4-byte aligned, but I didn't see
any checks.

Hmm... should we just assert that at runtime here?

I doubt any reasonable boxed type will ever have a non-aligned address in practice, but I guess it's technically not impossible. Maybe we should just add it to the contract for ForeignOwnable?

~~ Lina