Re: [PATCH v13 2/6] rust: introduce module_param module

[Benno Lossin]

On Tue Jul 1, 2025 at 4:14 PM CEST, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> "Benno Lossin" <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On Tue Jul 1, 2025 at 10:43 AM CEST, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>>> No, I am OK for now with configfs.
>>>
>>> But, progress is still great. How about if we add a copy accessor
>>> instead for now, I think you proposed that a few million emails ago:
>>>
>>>     pub fn get(&self) -> T;
>>>
>>> or maybe rename:
>>>
>>>     pub fn copy(&self) -> T;
>>>
>>> Then we are fine safety wise for now, right? It is even sensible for
>>> these `T: Copy` types.
>>
>> That is better than getting a reference, but still someone could read at
>> the same time that a write is happening (though we need some new
>> abstractions AFAIK?). But I fear that we forget about this issue,
>> because it'll be some time until we land parameters that are `!Copy` (if
>> at all...)
>
> No, that could not happen when we are not allowing custom parsing or
> sysfs access. Regarding forgetting, I already added a `NOTE` on `!Copy`,
> and I would add one on this issue as well.

Ultimately this is something for Miguel to decide. I would support an
unsafe accessor (we should also make it `-> T`), since there it "can't
go wrong", any UB is the fault of the user of the API. It also serves as
a good reminder, since a `NOTE` comment shouldn't be something
guaranteeing safety (we do have some of these global invariants, but I
feel like this one is too tribal and doesn't usually come up, so I feel
like it's more dangerous).

I think we should also move this patchset along, we could also opt for
no accessor at all :) Then it isn't really useful without the downstream
accessor function, but that can come after.

---
Cheers,
Benno