rust/kernel/revocable.rs | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
The code used to use `compare_exchange` in the initial version
but it was changed to `swap` after a reviewer suggestion (see [1]),
and then the safety comment was not updated and became incorrect.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241211104742.533392-1-benoit@dugarreau.fr [1]
Signed-off-by: Onur Özkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
---
rust/kernel/revocable.rs | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
index 06a3cdfce344..5c0b7afa76fb 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
@@ -163,8 +163,10 @@ unsafe fn revoke_internal<const SYNC: bool>(&self) -> bool {
unsafe { bindings::synchronize_rcu() };
}
- // SAFETY: We know `self.data` is valid because only one CPU can succeed the
- // `compare_exchange` above that takes `is_available` from `true` to `false`.
+ // SAFETY: We just used an atomic `swap` to check if the data was still marked
+ // as available. If it returns `true`, that means we are the first (and only)
+ // thread to see it as available and mark it as unavailable. So no other thread
+ // can access or drop the data after this. That makes it safe to drop the data here.
unsafe { drop_in_place(self.data.get()) };
}
--
2.50.0
Something went wrong with your TO addresses, merging Alex's and
Boqun's...
On Thu Jul 3, 2025 at 7:26 PM CEST, Onur Özkan wrote:
> The code used to use `compare_exchange` in the initial version
> but it was changed to `swap` after a reviewer suggestion (see [1]),
> and then the safety comment was not updated and became incorrect.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241211104742.533392-1-benoit@dugarreau.fr [1]
>
> Signed-off-by: Onur Özkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
> ---
> rust/kernel/revocable.rs | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> index 06a3cdfce344..5c0b7afa76fb 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> @@ -163,8 +163,10 @@ unsafe fn revoke_internal<const SYNC: bool>(&self) -> bool {
> unsafe { bindings::synchronize_rcu() };
> }
>
> - // SAFETY: We know `self.data` is valid because only one CPU can succeed the
> - // `compare_exchange` above that takes `is_available` from `true` to `false`.
> + // SAFETY: We just used an atomic `swap` to check if the data was still marked
> + // as available. If it returns `true`, that means we are the first (and only)
> + // thread to see it as available and mark it as unavailable. So no other thread
> + // can access or drop the data after this. That makes it safe to drop the data here.
I think this is already addressed by this series:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250626165927.66498-1-marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com
---
Cheers,
Benno
> unsafe { drop_in_place(self.data.get()) };
> }
>
On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 21:55:44 +0200
"Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:
> Something went wrong with your TO addresses, merging Alex's and
> Boqun's...
>
> On Thu Jul 3, 2025 at 7:26 PM CEST, Onur Özkan wrote:
> > The code used to use `compare_exchange` in the initial version
> > but it was changed to `swap` after a reviewer suggestion (see [1]),
> > and then the safety comment was not updated and became incorrect.
> >
> > Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241211104742.533392-1-benoit@dugarreau.fr
> > [1]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Onur Özkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
> > ---
> > rust/kernel/revocable.rs | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > index 06a3cdfce344..5c0b7afa76fb 100644
> > --- a/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/revocable.rs
> > @@ -163,8 +163,10 @@ unsafe fn revoke_internal<const SYNC:
> > bool>(&self) -> bool { unsafe { bindings::synchronize_rcu() };
> > }
> >
> > - // SAFETY: We know `self.data` is valid because only
> > one CPU can succeed the
> > - // `compare_exchange` above that takes `is_available`
> > from `true` to `false`.
> > + // SAFETY: We just used an atomic `swap` to check if
> > the data was still marked
> > + // as available. If it returns `true`, that means we
> > are the first (and only)
> > + // thread to see it as available and mark it as
> > unavailable. So no other thread
> > + // can access or drop the data after this. That makes
> > it safe to drop the data here.
>
> I think this is already addressed by this series:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250626165927.66498-1-marcelomoreira1905@gmail.com
Yeah, seems like.
Thanks,
Onur
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.