"Benno Lossin" <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri Jun 20, 2025 at 1:29 PM CEST, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> "Benno Lossin" <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 3:40 PM CEST, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>>>> +/// A wrapper for kernel parameters.
>>>> +///
>>>> +/// This type is instantiated by the [`module!`] macro when module parameters are
>>>> +/// defined. You should never need to instantiate this type directly.
>>>> +///
>>>> +/// Note: This type is `pub` because it is used by module crates to access
>>>> +/// parameter values.
>>>> +#[repr(transparent)]
>>>> +pub struct ModuleParamAccess<T> {
>>>> + data: core::cell::UnsafeCell<T>,
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +// SAFETY: We only create shared references to the contents of this container,
>>>> +// so if `T` is `Sync`, so is `ModuleParamAccess`.
>>>> +unsafe impl<T: Sync> Sync for ModuleParamAccess<T> {}
>>>> +
>>>> +impl<T> ModuleParamAccess<T> {
>>>> + #[doc(hidden)]
>>>> + pub const fn new(value: T) -> Self {
>>>> + Self {
>>>> + data: core::cell::UnsafeCell::new(value),
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /// Get a shared reference to the parameter value.
>>>> + // Note: When sysfs access to parameters are enabled, we have to pass in a
>>>> + // held lock guard here.
>>>> + pub fn get(&self) -> &T {
>>>> + // SAFETY: As we only support read only parameters with no sysfs
>>>> + // exposure, the kernel will not touch the parameter data after module
>>>> + // initialization.
>>>
>>> This should be a type invariant. But I'm having difficulty defining one
>>> that's actually correct: after parsing the parameter, this is written
>>> to, but when is that actually?
>>
>> For built-in modules it is during kernel initialization. For loadable
>> modules, it during module load. No code from the module will execute
>> before parameters are set.
>
> Gotcha and there never ever will be custom code that is executed
> before/during parameter setting (so code aside from code in `kernel`)?
Not with the parameter parsers we provide now. In the case of custom
parsing code, I suppose there is nothing preventing the parsing code
from spinning up a thread that could do stuff while more parameters are
initialized by the kernel.
Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg
