On Sun Apr 27, 2025 at 12:20 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 08:56:29AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Sat Apr 26, 2025 at 11:26 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 08:30:39PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> >> On Sat Apr 26, 2025 at 3:30 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> >> > For the I/O operations executed from the probe() method, take advantage
>> >> > of Devres::access_with(), avoiding the atomic check and RCU read lock
>> >> > required otherwise entirely.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs | 12 ++++++------
>> >> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs b/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs
>> >> > index 9ce3a7323a16..3e1569e5096e 100644
>> >> > --- a/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs
>> >> > +++ b/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs
>> >> > @@ -83,12 +83,12 @@ fn probe(pdev: &pci::Device<Core>, info: &Self::IdInfo) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>
>> >> > GFP_KERNEL,
>> >> > )?;
>> >> >
>> >> > - let res = drvdata
>> >> > - .bar
>> >> > - .try_access_with(|b| Self::testdev(info, b))
>> >> > - .ok_or(ENXIO)??;
>> >> > -
>> >> > - dev_info!(pdev.as_ref(), "pci-testdev data-match count: {}\n", res);
>> >> > + let bar = drvdata.bar.access_with(pdev.as_ref())?;
>> >>
>> >> Since this code might inspire other code, I don't think that we should
>> >> return `EINVAL` here (bubbled up from `access_with`). Not sure what the
>> >> correct thing here would be though...
>> >
>> > I can't think of any other error code that would match better, EINVAL seems to
>> > be the correct thing. Maybe one could argue for ENODEV, but I still think EINVAL
>> > fits better.
>>
>> The previous iteration of the sample used the ENXIO error code.
>
> Yes, because the cause of error for try_access_with() failing would have been
> that the device was unbound already, hence a different error code.
Ah I see.
>> In this sample it should be impossible to trigger the error path. But
>> others might copy the code into a context where that is not the case and
>> then might have a horrible time debugging where the `EINVAL` came from.
>
> I think it should always pretty unlikely design wise to supply a non-matching
> device.
>
>> I don't know if our answer to that should be "improve debugging errors
>> in general" or "improve the error handling in this case". I have no
>> idea how the former could look like, maybe something around
>> `#[track_caller]` and noting the lines where an error was created? For
>> the latter case, we could do:
>>
>> let bar = match drvdata.bar.access_with(pdev.as_ref()) {
>> Ok(bar) => bar,
>> Err(_) => {
>> // `bar` was just created using the `pdev` above, so this should never happen.
>> return Err(ENXIO);
>
> If the caller really put in a non-matching device we can't say for sure that the
> cause is ENXIO, the only thing we know is that the code author confused device
> instances, so I think EINVAL is still the correct thing to return.
>
> The problem that it might be difficult to figure out the source of the error
> code has always been present in the kernel, and while I'm not saying we
> shouldn't aim for improving this, I don't think this patch is quite the place
> for this.
Agreed.
---
Cheers,
Benno
