On 10.09.24 15:37, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 01:11:35PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On 03.09.24 13:48, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 02:45:35PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
>>>> On 30.08.24 00:04, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 06:32:42PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.08.24 02:10, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>>>>>> +///
>>>>>>> +/// For more details see [self].
>>>>>>> +pub struct Kmalloc;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /// Returns a proper size to alloc a new object aligned to `new_layout`'s alignment.
>>>>>>> fn aligned_size(new_layout: Layout) -> usize {
>>>>>>> @@ -36,6 +52,60 @@ pub(crate) unsafe fn krealloc_aligned(ptr: *mut u8, new_layout: Layout, flags: F
>>>>>>> unsafe { bindings::krealloc(ptr as *const core::ffi::c_void, size, flags.0) as *mut u8 }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +/// # Invariants
>>>>>>> +///
>>>>>>> +/// One of the following `krealloc`, `vrealloc`, `kvrealloc`.
>>>>>>> +struct ReallocFunc(
>>>>>>> + unsafe extern "C" fn(*const core::ffi::c_void, usize, u32) -> *mut core::ffi::c_void,
>>>>>>> +);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +impl ReallocFunc {
>>>>>>> + // INVARIANT: `krealloc` satisfies the type invariants.
>>>>>>> + const KREALLOC: Self = Self(bindings::krealloc);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /// # Safety
>>>>>>> + ///
>>>>>>> + /// This method has the same safety requirements as [`Allocator::realloc`].
>>>>>>> + unsafe fn call(
>>>>>>> + &self,
>>>>>>> + ptr: Option<NonNull<u8>>,
>>>>>>> + layout: Layout,
>>>>>>> + flags: Flags,
>>>>>>> + ) -> Result<NonNull<[u8]>, AllocError> {
>>>>>>> + let size = aligned_size(layout);
>>>>>>> + let ptr = match ptr {
>>>>>>> + Some(ptr) => ptr.as_ptr(),
>>>>>>> + None => ptr::null(),
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + // SAFETY: `ptr` is either NULL or valid by the safety requirements of this function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need some justification as to why calling the three allowed
>>>>>> functions here.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of justification do I need? Can you please share some more details on
>>>>> what you think is missing here?
>>>>
>>>> So, you are calling a function pointer to an `unsafe` function. This
>>>> means that through some invariant you have to know what the safety
>>>> requirements are (otherwise how can you guarantee that this is OK?). You
>>>> have the invariant that the pointer points at one of the three functions
>>>> mentioned above. What are the safety requirements of those functions? I
>>>> would assume that the only one is that `ptr` is valid. So you can use:
>>>>
>>>> // SAFETY:
>>>> // - `self.0` is one of `krealloc`, `vrealloc`, `kvrealloc` and thus only requires that `ptr` is
>>>> // NULL or valid.
>>>
>>> I'm fine adding it, but I'd like to understand why you think it's required in
>>> the safety comment here? Isn't this implicit by being the type invariant?
>>
>> You are calling a function pointer to an `unsafe` function that takes a
>> raw pointer. Without this comment it is not clear what the function
>> pointer's safety requirements are for the raw pointer parameter.
>
> That's my point, isn't this implicitly clear by the type invariant? If needed,
> shouldn't it be:
I would argue that it is not implicitly clear, since to the reader of
just that unsafe block it's totally unclear that `self.0` has such an
invariant. They would have to read the type definition.
> // INVARIANT:
> // - `self.0` is one of [...]
> //
> // SAFETY:
> // - `ptr` is either NULL or [...]
>
>>
>>>> // - `ptr` is either NULL or valid by the safety requirements of this function.
>>>
>>> This is the part I already have.
>>
>> I kept it to ensure that you also keep it.
[...]
>>>>>>> + #[inline]
>>>>>>> + unsafe fn realloc(
>>>>>>> + ptr: Option<NonNull<u8>>,
>>>>>>> + layout: Layout,
>>>>>>> + flags: Flags,
>>>>>>> + ) -> Result<NonNull<[u8]>, AllocError> {
>>>>>>> + // SAFETY: `ReallocFunc::call` has the same safety requirements as `Allocator::realloc`.
>>>>>>> + unsafe { ReallocFunc::KREALLOC.call(ptr, layout, flags) }
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Oh one more thing, I know that you already have a lot of patches in this
>>>> series, but could you split this one into two? So the first one should
>>>> introduce `ReallocFunc` and the second one add the impl for `Kmalloc`?
>>>> I managed to confuse me twice because of that :)
>>>
>>> Generally, I'm fine with that, but I'm not sure if I can avoid an intermediate
>>> compiler warning about unused code doing that.
>>
>> You can just use `#[expect(dead_code)]` for that in the intermediate
>> patches.
>
> I usually try to avoid that, because it can be misleading when bisecting things.
>
> If the temporarily unused code contains a bug, your bisection doesn't end up at
> this patch, but some other patch that starts using it.
I don't think it's a problem in this case, since the two patches are
directly next to each other and you're not changing existing code, just
splitting up the addition of new code.
---
Cheers,
Benno
