On Tue Mar 11, 2025 at 7:12 PM CET, Boqun Feng wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 07:47:58PM +0200, Abdiel Janulgue wrote:
[...]
+ /// Reads the value of `field` and ensures that its type is [`FromBytes`].
+ ///
+ /// # Safety
+ ///
+ /// This must be called from the [`dma_read`] macro which ensures that the `field` pointer is
+ /// validated beforehand.
+ ///
+ /// Public but hidden since it should only be used from [`dma_read`] macro.
+ #[doc(hidden)]
+ pub unsafe fn field_read<F: FromBytes>(&self, field: *const F) -> F {
+ // SAFETY: By the safety requirements field is valid.
+ unsafe { field.read_volatile() }
I agree with Andreas that we should document the exception of usage on
{read,write}_volatile() here. How about:
When dealing with a potential race from a hardware or code outside
kernel (e.g. user-space program), we need that read and write on a valid
memory are not UBs. Currently {read,write}_volatile() are used for this,
I would use the singular `UB` here and below.
and the rationale behind is that they should generate the same code as
READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() which kernel already relies on to avoid UBs
s/kernel/the kernel/
on data races. Note that the usage of {read,write}_volatile() is limited
to this particular case, they cannot be used to emit the UBs caused by
s/emit/prevent/
racing between two kernel functions nor do they provide atomicity.
Thoughts? One problem is that I don't know where to put this document
:-( Any suggestion?
I am a bit out of the loop on this one, but why not put into the safety
comment? I.e. explicitly state that this is *not* sound as per the usual
rules and it is a special exception?