On 3/21/24 14:42, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 2:16 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/20/24 09:46, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/24 11:47, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>>>>> +/// A pointer to a page that owns the page allocation.
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// # Invariants
>>>>> +///
>>>>> +/// The pointer points at a page, and has ownership over the page.
>>>>
>>>> Why not "`page` is valid"?
>>>> Do you mean by ownership of the page that `page` has ownership of the
>>>> allocation, or does that entail any other property/privilege?
>>>
>>> I can add "at a valid page".
>>
>> I don't think that helps, what you need as an invariant is that the
>> pointer is valid.
>
> To me "points at a page" implies that the pointer is valid. I mean, if
> it was dangling, it would not point at a page?
>
> But I can reword to something else if you have a preferred phrasing.
I would just say "`page` is valid" or "`self.page` is valid".
>>>>> + /// Runs a piece of code with this page mapped to an address.
>>>>> + ///
>>>>> + /// The page is unmapped when this call returns.
>>>>> + ///
>>>>> + /// It is up to the caller to use the provided raw pointer correctly.
>>>>
>>>> This says nothing about what 'correctly' means. What I gathered from the
>>>> implementation is that the supplied pointer is valid for the execution
>>>> of `f` for `PAGE_SIZE` bytes.
>>>> What other things are you allowed to rely upon?
>>>>
>>>> Is it really OK for this function to be called from multiple threads?
>>>> Could that not result in the same page being mapped multiple times? If
>>>> that is fine, what about potential data races when two threads write to
>>>> the pointer given to `f`?
>>>>
>>>>> + pub fn with_page_mapped<T>(&self, f: impl FnOnce(*mut u8) -> T) -> T {
>>>
>>> I will say:
>>>
>>> /// It is up to the caller to use the provided raw pointer correctly.
>>> /// The pointer is valid for `PAGE_SIZE` bytes and for the duration in
>>> /// which the closure is called. Depending on the gfp flags and kernel
>>> /// configuration, the pointer may only be mapped on the current thread,
>>> /// and in those cases, dereferencing it on other threads is UB. Other
>>> /// than that, the usual rules for dereferencing a raw pointer apply.
>>> /// (E.g., don't cause data races, the memory may be uninitialized, and
>>> /// so on.)
>>
>> I would simplify and drop "depending on the gfp flags and kernel..." and
>> just say that the pointer is only valid on the current thread.
>
> Sure, that works for me.
>
>> Also would it make sense to make the pointer type *mut [u8; PAGE_SIZE]?
>
> I think it's a trade-off. That makes the code more error-prone, since
> `pointer::add` now doesn't move by a number of bytes, but a number of
> pages.
Yeah. As long as you document that the pointer is valid for r/w with
offsets in `0..PAGE_SIZE` bytes, leaving the type as is, is fine by me.
>>> It's okay to map it multiple times from different threads.
>>
>> Do you still need to take care of data races?
>> So would it be fine to execute this code on two threads in parallel?
>>
>> static PAGE: Page = ...; // assume we have a page accessible by both threads
>>
>> PAGE.with_page_mapped(|ptr| {
>> loop {
>> unsafe { ptr.write(0) };
>> pr_info!("{}", unsafe { ptr.read() });
>> }
>> });
>
> Like I said, the usual pointer rules apply. Two threads can access it
> in parallel as long as one of the following are satisfied:
>
> * Both accesses are reads.
> * Both accesses are atomic.
> * They access disjoint byte ranges.
>
> Other than the fact that it uses a thread-local mapping on machines
> that can't address all of their memory at the same time, it's
> completely normal memory. It's literally just a PAGE_SIZE-aligned
> allocation of PAGE_SIZE bytes.
Thanks for the info, what do you think of this?:
/// It is up to the caller to use the provided raw pointer correctly. The pointer is valid for reads
/// and writes for `PAGE_SIZE` bytes and for the duration in which the closure is called. The
/// pointer must only be used on the current thread. The caller must also ensure that no data races
/// occur: when mapping the same page on two threads accesses to memory with the same offset must be
/// synchronized.
>
>> If this is not allowed, I don't really like the API. As a raw version it
>> would be fine, but I think we should have a safer version (eg by taking
>> `&mut self`).
>
> I don't understand what you mean. It is the *most* raw API that `Page`
> has. I can make them private if you want me to. The API cannot take
> `&mut self` because I need to be able to unsafely perform concurrent
> writes to disjoint byte ranges.
If you don't need these functions to be public, I think we should
definitely make them private.
Also we could add a `raw` suffix to the functions to make it clear that
it is a primitive API. If you think that it is highly unlikely that we
get a safer version, then I don't think there is value in adding the
suffix.
--
Cheers,
Benno
