summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorShivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>2026-08-22 19:22:05 +0000
committerVinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>2026-09-09 17:51:44 +0530
commite873c74132f0c5f1452816cd9bb26208f0bba1e1 (patch)
treecc1ce1567f5b982359331863ebd9da38741f8d2e /Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
downloadlinux-stable-e873c74132f0c5f1452816cd9bb26208f0bba1e1.tar.gz
linux-stable-e873c74132f0c5f1452816cd9bb26208f0bba1e1.zip
dmaengine: fix use-after-free in dma_chan_put() and dma_release_channel()grafted
When dma_device_put() drops the last reference on chan->device->ref, dma_device_release() runs and may free the dma_device along with its channels. dma_chan_put() then still reads chan->device->owner via dma_chan_to_owner() for the trailing module_put(). KASAN catches it: slab-use-after-free in dma_chan_put+0x3e6/0x4c0 Read of size 8 by task insmod/6319 Freed by task 6319: kfree+0x225/0x470 dma_chan_put+0x395/0x4c0 dmaengine_put+0xf8/0x160 Cache the module owner in dma_chan_put() before the put so the trailing module_put() does not need chan->device. Fixes: 8ad342a86359 ("dmaengine: Add reference counting to dma_device struct") Suggested-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org> Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518-dmaengine-kref-fix-v1-1-4d6125048fb7@amd.com Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260822-dmaengine-kref-fix-v5-3-d4a4ee47d927@amd.com Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@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.