Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] rust: Introduce irq module

[Dirk Behme]

On 12.09.2024 02:55, Lyude Paul wrote:
> This introduces a module for dealing with interrupt-disabled contexts,
> including the ability to enable and disable interrupts
> (with_irqs_disabled()) - along with the ability to annotate functions as
> expecting that IRQs are already disabled on the local CPU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> V2:
> * Actually make it so that we check whether or not we have interrupts
>    disabled with debug assertions
> * Fix issues in the documentation (added suggestions, missing periods, made
>    sure that all rustdoc examples compile properly)
> * Pass IrqDisabled by value, not reference
> * Ensure that IrqDisabled is !Send and !Sync using
>    PhantomData<(&'a (), *mut ())>
> * Add all of the suggested derives from Benno Lossin
>
> V3:
> * Use `impl` for FnOnce bounds in with_irqs_disabled()
> * Use higher-ranked trait bounds for the lifetime of with_irqs_disabled()
> * Wording changes in the documentation for the module itself
>
> V4:
> * Use the actual unsafe constructor for IrqDisabled in
>    with_irqs_disabled()
> * Fix comment style in with_irqs_disabled example
> * Check before calling local_irq_restore() in with_irqs_disabled that
>    interrupts are still disabled. 


This looks correct ...


> It would have been nice to do this from a
>    Drop implementation like I hoped, but I realized rust doesn't allow that
>    for types that implement Copy.
> * Document that interrupts can't be re-enabled within the `cb` provided to
>    `with_irqs_disabled`, and link to the github issue I just filed about
>    this that describes the solution for this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
....
> +/// Run the closure `cb` with interrupts disabled on the local CPU.
> +///
> +/// This creates an [`IrqDisabled`] token, which can be passed to functions that must be run
> +/// without interrupts. Note that interrupts must be disabled for the entire duration of `cb`, they
> +/// cannot be re-enabled. In the future, this may be expanded on
> +/// [as documented here](https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1115).
> +///
> +/// # Examples
> +///
> +/// Using [`with_irqs_disabled`] to call a function that can only be called with interrupts
> +/// disabled:
> +///
> +/// ```
> +/// use kernel::irq::{IrqDisabled, with_irqs_disabled};
> +///
> +/// // Requiring interrupts be disabled to call a function
> +/// fn dont_interrupt_me(_irq: IrqDisabled<'_>) {
> +///     // When this token is available, IRQs are known to be disabled. Actions that rely on this
> +///     // can be safely performed
> +/// }
> +///
> +/// // Disabling interrupts. They'll be re-enabled once this closure completes.
> +/// with_irqs_disabled(|irq| dont_interrupt_me(irq));
> +/// ```
> +#[inline]
> +pub fn with_irqs_disabled<T>(cb: impl for<'a> FnOnce(IrqDisabled<'a>) -> T) -> T {
> +    // SAFETY: FFI call with no special requirements
> +    let flags = unsafe { bindings::local_irq_save() };
> +
> +    // SAFETY: We just disabled IRQs using `local_irq_save()`
> +    let ret = cb(unsafe { IrqDisabled::new() });
> +
> +    // Confirm that IRQs are still enabled now that the callback has finished

... so here it should be 'disabled' instead of 'enabled'? "Confirm that 
IRQs are still disabled ...".

Dirk