[PATCH 4/5] rust: hrtimer: use READ_ONCE instead of read_volatile

[Andreas Hindborg]

"FUJITA Tomonori" <fujita.tomonori at gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 11:11:23 +0900 (JST)
> FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 12:22:28 +0000
>> Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Using `READ_ONCE` is the correct way to read the `node.expires` field.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl at google.com>
>>> ---
>>>  rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs | 8 +++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs b/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs
>>> index 856d2d929a00892dc8eaec63cebdf547817953d3..e2b7a26f8aade972356c3eb5f6489bcda3e2e849 100644
>>> --- a/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs
>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/time/hrtimer.rs
>>> @@ -239,11 +239,9 @@ pub fn expires(&self) -> HrTimerInstant<T>
>>>          // - Timers cannot have negative ktime_t values as their expiration time.
>>>          // - There's no actual locking here, a racy read is fine and expected
>>>          unsafe {
>>> -            Instant::from_ktime(
>>> -                // This `read_volatile` is intended to correspond to a READ_ONCE call.
>>> -                // FIXME(read_once): Replace with `read_once` when available on the Rust side.
>>> -                core::ptr::read_volatile(&raw const ((*c_timer_ptr).node.expires)),
>>> -            )
>>> +            Instant::from_ktime(kernel::sync::READ_ONCE(
>>> +                &raw const (*c_timer_ptr).node.expires,
>>> +            ))
>>>          }
>>
>> Do we actually need READ_ONCE() here? I'm not sure but would it be
>> better to call the C-side API?
>>
>> diff --git a/rust/helpers/time.c b/rust/helpers/time.c
>> index 67a36ccc3ec4..73162dea2a29 100644
>> --- a/rust/helpers/time.c
>> +++ b/rust/helpers/time.c
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>
>>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>>  #include <linux/ktime.h>
>> +#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>>  #include <linux/timekeeping.h>
>>
>>  void rust_helper_fsleep(unsigned long usecs)
>> @@ -38,3 +39,8 @@ void rust_helper_udelay(unsigned long usec)
>>  {
>>  	udelay(usec);
>>  }
>> +
>> +__rust_helper ktime_t rust_helper_hrtimer_get_expires(const struct hrtimer *timer)
>> +{
>> +	return timer->node.expires;
>> +}
>
> Sorry, of course this should be:
>
> +__rust_helper ktime_t rust_helper_hrtimer_get_expires(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> +{
> +	return hrtimer_get_expires(timer);
> +}
>

This is a potentially racy read. As far as I recall, we determined that
using read_once is the proper way to handle the situation.

I do not think it makes a difference that the read is done by C code.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg