On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 11:48:15PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu Jul 30, 2026 at 6:11 PM JST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 11:05:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 6:16 PM JST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> >> > + where
> >> > + B: lock::Backend,
> >> > + F: FnOnce() -> Result<T, E>,
> >> > + {
> >> > + if let Some(value) = self.as_ref() {
> >> > + return Ok(value);
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + let mut to_insert = f()?;
> >>
> >> This means that `f` can run more than once for a given `SetOnce`, which
> >> can lead to problems depending on `f`'s' side-effects.
> >>
> >> In the GEM shmem case, we would create a second `SGTableMap`, and since
> >> `SGTableMap` assumes it is the sole owner, the last instance to drop
> >> would create a use-after-free.
> >>
> >> Now this sounds more like a problem with `SGTableMap`, but if we cannot
> >> avoid calling `f` at least twice then I think it would help if this was
> >> documented.
> >
> > Hmm ... this is the behavior I want in Binder. Actually creating the
> > value is an allocation, but my lock is a spinlock so I cannot invoke f()
> > under the lock. This means that each caller will make their own
> > allocation, and then we throw away any extras if there are concurrent
> > callers.
> >
> > If GEM shmem wants f() invoked under the lock, then that's just a
> > different operation than the one Binder wants.
> >
> > Do you think we should add both?
>
> Possibly... but this would introduce a potential footgun that sleeps
> while holding a spinlock, unless we limit the run-f-under-lock version
> to work only with mutexes.
>
> Maybe the proper solution is to fix `SGTableMap` so it supports multiple
> instantiations. It is, after all, a bit footgunny on its own.
>
> In any case, the current versions should warn users about the fact that
> `f` can be called more than once imho.
We could extend the naming scheme:
* try_get_or_populate_once() only invokes f() once, under lock
* try_get_or_populate_racy() may invoke f() multiple times
Though the _once naming isn't amazing since it still may invoke f()
multiple times if it fails. On failure, the next initializer gets to try
again.
Thoughts?
Alice
