summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorKumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>2026-09-04 10:43:19 +0200
committerAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2026-09-04 07:58:36 -0700
commit6668ed271eaefaa63e686bdfbedaeb7b8e492722 (patch)
tree58e8288fead484f6755ad0815fc74c3742663761 /Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
downloadlinux-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.rst69
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.