On Thu Oct 9, 2025 at 6:40 PM CEST, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 09:37:10PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> Use BoundedInt with the register!() macro and adapt the nova-core code
>> accordingly. This makes it impossible to trim values when setting a
>> register field, because either the value of the field has been inferred
>> at compile-time to fit within the bounds of the field, or the user has
>> been forced to check at runtime that it does indeed fit.
>
> In C23 we've got _BitInt(), which works like:
>
> unsigned _BitInt(2) a = 5; // compile-time error
>
> Can you consider a similar name and syntax in rust?
Rust is a different language and has its own syntax, I think we should not try
to use C syntax instead.
>> regs::NV_PFALCON_FALCON_DMATRFBASE1::default()
>> - .set_base((dma_start >> 40) as u16)
>> + .try_set_base(dma_start >> 40)?
>> .write(bar, &E::ID);
>
> Does it mean that something like the following syntax is possible?
>
> regs::NV_PFALCON_FALCON_DMATRFBASE1::default()
> .try_set_base1(base1 >> 40)? // fail here
Note that try_set_base1() returns a Result [1], which is handled immediately by
the question mark operator [2]. I.e. if try_set_base1() returns an error it is
propagated to the caller right away without executing any of the code below.
> .try_set_base2(base2 >> 40)? // skip
> .write(bar, &E::ID) else { pr_err!(); return -EINVAL };
>
> This is my main concern: Rust is advertised a as runtime-safe language
> (at lease safer than C), but current design isn't safe against one of
> the most common errors: type overflow.
Where do you see a potential runtime overflows in the register!() code?
[1] https://rust.docs.kernel.org/kernel/error/type.Result.html
[2]
https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/expressions/operator-expr.html?highlight=question%20mark#the-question-mark-operator
