On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:32:45PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 07:47:30PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:31:10PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > > Let's take a step back and look again why we have Devres (and Revocable) for > > > e.g. pci::Bar. > > > > > > The device / driver model requires that device resources are only held by a > > > driver, as long as the driver is bound to the device. > > > > > > For instance, in C we achieve this by calling > > > > > > pci_iounmap() > > > pci_release_region() > > > > > > from remove(). > > > > > > We rely on this, we trust drivers to actually do this. > > > > Right, exactly > > > > But it is not just PCI bar. There are a *huge* number of kernel APIs > > that have built in to them the same sort of requirement - teardown > > MUST run with remove, and once done the resource cannot be used by > > another thread. > > > > Basically most things involving function pointers has this sort of > > lifecycle requirement because it is a common process that prevents a > > EAF of module unload. > > You're still mixing topics, the whole Devres<pci::Bar> thing as about limiting > object lifetime to the point where the driver is unbound. > > Shutting down asynchronous execution of things, i.e. workqueues, timers, IOCTLs > to prevent unexpected access to the module .text section is a whole different > topic. Again, the standard kernel design pattern is to put these things together so that shutdown isolates concurrency which permits free without UAF. > In other words, assuming that we properly enforce that there are no async > execution paths after remove() or module_exit() (not necessarily the same), > we still need to ensure that a pci::Bar object does not outlive remove(). Yes, you just have to somehow use rust to ensure a call pci_iounmap() happens during remove, after the isolation. You are already doing it with devm. It seems to me the only problem you have is nobody has invented a way in rust to contract that the devm won't run until the threads are isolated. I don't see this as insolvable, you can have some input argument to any API that creates concurrency that also pushes an ordered destructor to the struct device lifecycle that ensures it cancels that concurrency. > Device resources are a bit special, since their lifetime must be cap'd at device > unbind, *independent* of the object lifetime they reside in. Hence the Devres > container. I'd argue many resources should be limited to device unbind. Memory is perhaps the only exception. > > My fear, that is intensifying as we go through this discussion, is > > that rust binding authors have not fully comprehended what the kernel > > life cycle model and common design pattern actually is, and have not > > fully thought through issues like module unload creating a lifetime > > cycle for *function pointers*. > > I do *not* see where you take the evidence from to make such a generic > statement. Well, I take the basic insistance that is OK to leak stuff from driver scope to module scope is not well designed. > Especially because there aren't a lot of abstractions upstream yet that fall > under this category. And I am thinking forward to other APIs you will need and how they will interact and not feeling good about this direction. > > The thing is once you have a mechanism to shutdown all the stuff you > > don't need the overhead of this revocable checking on the normal > > paths. What you need is a way to bring your pci::Bar into a safety > > contract that remove will shootdown concurrency and that directly > > denies references to pci::Bar, and the same contract will guarentee it > > frees pci::Bar memory. > > This contract needs to be technically enforced, not by convention as > we do in C. People do amazing things with contracts in rust, why is this case so hard? > Data that is accessed from a work item can't be freed under the > workqueue by design in Rust. What? That's madness, alot of work functions are freeing something. They are often the terminal point of an object's lifecycle because you often have to allocate memory to launch the work in the first place. Certainly if you restrict workqueues to be very limited then alot of their challenging problems disappear :\ Jason
