Re: [PATCH 1/2] rust: sync: refactor static_lock_class!() macro

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 05:01:39PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 4:36 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed Jul 23, 2025 at 1:49 PM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > >  impl LockClassKey {
> > > +    /// Initializes a statically allocated lock class key.
> > > +    ///
> > > +    /// This is usually used indirectly through the [`static_lock_class!`] macro.
> > > +    ///
> > > +    /// # Safety
> > > +    ///
> > > +    /// The destructor must never run on the returned `LockClassKey`.
> >
> > I don't know how lockdep works, but Boqun mentioned in the other thread
> > that it uses the address of static keys. But AFAIK there is no mechanism
> > to differentiate them, so does lockdep just check the address and if it

In lockdep, we use `static_obj()` to tell whether it's a static obj or a
dynamic allocated one.

> > is in a static segment it uses different behavior?
> >
> > Because from the safety requirements on this function, I could just do
> > this:
> >
> >     // SAFETY: we leak the box below, so the destructor never runs.
> >     let class = KBox::new(unsafe { LockClassKey::new_static() });
> >     let class = Pin::static_ref(KBox::leak(class));
> >     let lock = SpinLock::new(42, c_str!("test"), class);

This will trigger a runtime error because `class` is not static, but
technically, it won't trigger UB, at least lockdep should be able to
handle this case.

Regards,
Boqun

> >     let _ = lock.lock();
> >
> > Because if lockdep then expects this to be initialized, we need to
> > change the requirement to only be used from statics.
> 
> My understanding is that it has to with correctly handling reuse of
> the same key. In your scenario it's not reused.
> 
> Alice