forked from torvalds/linux
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 435
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement THIS_MODULE equivalent #15
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need a safer wrapper around this, otherwise passing the raw ptr makes this interface unsafe.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Passing the address is not unsafe on its own. I agree that it could look better (e.g. a
struct ThisModule
as I mentioned in the message above).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because this will deref the ptr, and creating a raw ptr is safe, the impact is that this is unsound :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it is definitely unsound, but the interface isn't unsafe due to the pointer passing on its own -- i.e. if we could check the pointer (somehow), then the function wouldn't need to be
unsafe
to be sound.Related: at some point we will have to establish some guidelines in the docs (before Rust code starts growing quickly with people calling kernel APIs directly etc.) on "how much soundness-correct" we want to be (see similar discussions in e.g. cxx).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, but there's no way to check if the pointer is correct :-)
In general, safe interfaces can't really take raw pointers for this reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know, that is why I said "somehow" :-)
I think in my first reply you understood I was disagreeing about the function needing to be marked unsafe or having a proper abstraction -- I was only (pedantically) pointing out that it is not the passing but what we do with the pointer that makes the function unsafe.