diff options
| author | Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> | 2026-09-04 10:43:19 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2026-09-04 07:58:36 -0700 |
| commit | 6668ed271eaefaa63e686bdfbedaeb7b8e492722 (patch) | |
| tree | 58e8288fead484f6755ad0815fc74c3742663761 /Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst | |
| download | linux-stable-6668ed271eaefaa63e686bdfbedaeb7b8e492722.tar.gz linux-stable-6668ed271eaefaa63e686bdfbedaeb7b8e492722.zip | |
selftests/bpf: Reject graph kptr use after RCU unlockgrafted
Add a sleepable verifier test that loads a graph-node local kptr in an
explicit RCU read-side critical section, then passes its node to
bpf_rbtree_remove() after the section ends.
Before the verifier fix, the stale NON_OWN_REF flag makes the node look like
a live borrowed reference and the program is accepted. After the fix, the
pointer is demoted without NON_OWN_REF and the graph kfunc argument is
rejected.
Also exercise a graph kptr loaded while a spin lock provides implicit RCU
protection. The pointer must be invalidated when the lock is released, which
guards the required ordering between non-owning-reference invalidation and
RCU demotion.
Update the existing fault-protected load test state description. The
post-unlock pointer no longer carries NON_OWN_REF, but remains readable
because the load is rewritten to use BPF_PROBE_MEM.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260904084325.52250-7-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst | 69 |
1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..13ab13984 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) + +========== +Guidelines +========== + +This document describes the general project guidelines that apply to nova-core +and nova-drm. + +Language +======== + +The Nova project uses the Rust programming language. In this context, all rules +of the Rust for Linux project as documented in +:doc:`../../rust/general-information` apply. Additionally, the following rules +apply. + +- Unless technically necessary otherwise (e.g. uAPI), any driver code is written + in Rust. + +- Unless technically necessary, unsafe Rust code must be avoided. In case of + technical necessity, unsafe code should be isolated in a separate component + providing a safe API for other driver code to use. + +Style +----- + +All rules of the Rust for Linux project as documented in +:doc:`../../rust/coding-guidelines` apply. + +For a submit checklist, please also see the `Rust for Linux Submit checklist +addendum <https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#submit-checklist-addendum>`_. + +Documentation +============= + +The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability, +accessibility for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general, +but especially for a driver running as complex hardware as Nova is targeting. + +Hence, adding documentation of any kind is very much encouraged by the project. + +Besides that, there are some minimum requirements. + +- Every non-private structure needs at least a brief doc comment explaining the + semantical sense of the structure, as well as potential locking and lifetime + requirements. It is encouraged to have the same minimum documentation for + non-trivial private structures. + +- uAPIs must be fully documented with kernel-doc comments; additionally, the + semantical behavior must be explained including potential special or corner + cases. + +- The APIs connecting the 1st level driver (nova-core) with 2nd level drivers + must be fully documented. This includes doc comments, potential locking and + lifetime requirements, as well as example code if applicable. + +- Abbreviations must be explained when introduced; terminology must be uniquely + defined. + +- Register addresses, layouts, shift values and masks must be defined properly; + unless obvious, the semantical sense must be documented. This only applies if + the author is able to obtain the corresponding information. + +Acceptance Criteria +=================== + +- Patches must only be applied if reviewed by at least one other person on the + mailing list; this also applies for maintainers. |
