Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Interoperation with cortex_m::peripheral::Peripheral.borrow is unsound #13

Closed
japaric opened this issue Apr 25, 2017 · 3 comments · Fixed by #34
Closed

Interoperation with cortex_m::peripheral::Peripheral.borrow is unsound #13

japaric opened this issue Apr 25, 2017 · 3 comments · Fixed by #34
Labels

Comments

@japaric
Copy link
Collaborator

japaric commented Apr 25, 2017

Background

The cortex-m crate defines a Peripheral type which is a new type around the address block address of the peripheral. We use that Peripheral in our Peripheral constructor. svd2rust generates a bunch of cortex_m::Peripheral "instances" (as pub consts) which the user later uses to create a rtfm::Peripheral static.

Problem

The problem is that cortex_m::Peripheral provides a borrow method that grants access to the peripheral within a cortex_m::interrupt::free critical section but that borrow doesn't know about the SRP or task priorities. Problematic code looks like this:

use rtfm::{C1, P1, P2, Peripheral}
use stm32f30x::interrupt;

// RESOURCES
static GPIOA: Peripheral<stm32f30x::Gpioa, C1> = unsafe { Peripheral::new(stm32f30x::GPIOA) };

// TASKS
tasks!(stm32f30x, {
    t1: Task {
        interrupt: Exti0,
        priority: P1,
        enabled: true,
    },
    t2: Task {
        interrupt: Exti0,
        priority: P2,
        enabled: true,
    },
});

fn t1(_task: interrupt::Gpioa, prio: P1) {
    let ceil = prio.as_ceiling();

    // NOTE GPIOA has type `cortex_m_rtfm::Peripheral`
    let gpioa = GPIOA.access(&prio, ceil);

    // Immediately preempts
    rtfm::request(t2);
}

fn t2(_task: interrupt::Gpiob, _prio: P2) {
    cortex_m::interrupt::free(|cs| {
        // this GPIOA has type `cortex_m::peripheral::Peripheral`
        // this breaks SRP because GPIOA has ceiling C1 which is less than this task priority (P2)
        let gpioa = stm32f30x::GPIOA.borrow(cs);
    });
}

Possible solutions

  • Remove cortex_m::interrupt::free or have svd2rust generated code not create cortex_m::peripheral::Peripheral instances. Instead svd2rust should generate some other type for peripheral instances but that doesn't have a borrow method that works with cortex_m::interrupt::free

  • Make cortex_m::Peripheral::borrow unsafe if and only if the cortex-m-rtfm crate is used with the cortex-m crate. I don't know if this is possible at all: Perhaps add a "rtfm" Cargo feature to cortex-m that makes cortex_m::Peripheral::borrow unsafe and have cortex-m-rtfm depend on cortex-m with that feature enabled. Because Cargo features are additive if one cortex-m instance in the dependency graph has the "rtfm" feature enabled then the cortex-m crate will always be compiled with that feature enabled. If this does work, I think it would probably be considered a misuse of Cargo features...

@japaric japaric added the bug label Apr 25, 2017
@awelkie
Copy link

awelkie commented Apr 27, 2017

Other possible solutions:

  • Write a lint plugin to warn when using the cortex_m::Peripheral::borrow method

  • Instead of exposing the Peripherals as pub consts, expose them as non-Sync objects. That way, svd2rust doesn't give a synchronization method and the user is responsible for synchronization if they need it. One way could be to have pub const Option<Peripheral>, and then any code (rtfm in this case) could take ownership of the peripheral by using Option::take.

Not sure if these are workable, just throwing them out there.

@japaric
Copy link
Collaborator Author

japaric commented Jul 29, 2017

This was actually not fixed by #34. Peripheral.borrow can bypass all the scope / ceiling machinery.

@japaric
Copy link
Collaborator Author

japaric commented Dec 9, 2017

This has been (finally!) fixed in #50. 🎉

@japaric japaric closed this as completed Dec 9, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants