Re: [PATCH] rust: fix outdated safety note in `Revocable::revoke_internal`

[Onur]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 21:55:44 +0200
"Benno Lossin" <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [1]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Onur Özkan <work@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  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@xxxxxxxxx

Yeah, seems like.


Thanks,
Onur