On Sun Apr 13, 2025 at 7:37 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> The Bound device context indicates that a device is bound to a driver.
> It must be used for APIs that require the device to be bound, such as
> Devres or dma::CoherentAllocation.
>
> Implement Bound and add the corresponding Deref hierarchy, as well as the
> corresponding ARef conversion for this device context.
>
> Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> rust/kernel/device.rs | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/device.rs b/rust/kernel/device.rs
> index 487211842f77..585a3fcfeea3 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/device.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/device.rs
> @@ -232,13 +232,19 @@ pub trait DeviceContext: private::Sealed {}
> /// any of the bus callbacks, such as `probe()`.
> pub struct Core;
>
> +/// The [`Bound`] context is the context of a bus specific device reference when it is guranteed to
> +/// be bound for the duration of its lifetime.
> +pub struct Bound;
One question about this: is it possible for me to
1. have access to a `ARef<Device<Bound>>` (or `Core`) via some callback,
2. store a clone of the `ARef` in some datastructure,
3. wait for the device to become unbound,
4. use a `Bound`-only context function and blow something up?
Depending on the severity of the "blow something up" we probably need to
change the design. If it's "only a bug" (and not a memory
vulnerability), then this is fine, since people should then "just not do
that" (and I think this design makes that painfully obvious when someone
tries to do something funny with a `Device<Bound>`).
---
Cheers,
Benno
