Try to say that memory outside the AM is always exposed
cc ``@Gankra`` ``@thomcc``
I want to confidently tell people that they can use `from_exposed_addr` to get a pointer for doing MMIO and/or other hardware interactions done with volatile reads/writes at particular addresses outside the Rust AM. Currently, the docs indicate that would be UB.
With this change, now the docs indicate that this is intended to be a valid use of `from_exposed_addr`.
r? ``@RalfJung``
Even nicer errors from assert_unsafe_precondition
For example, now running `cargo test` with this patch I get things like:
```
$ cargo +stage1 test
Finished test [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.01s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/malloc_buf-9d105ddf86862995)
running 5 tests
thread 'tests::test_null_buf' panicked at 'unsafe precondition violated: is_aligned_and_not_null(data) &&
crate::mem::size_of::<T>().saturating_mul(len) <= isize::MAX as usize', /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/slice/raw.rs:93:9
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
thread panicked while panicking. aborting.
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully: `/tmp/malloc_buf-1.0.0/target/debug/deps/malloc_buf-9d105ddf86862995` (signal: 6, SIGABRT: process abort signal)
```
This is still not perfect, but these are better for another PR:
* `stringify!` is trying to do clever pretty-printing on the `expr` inside `assert_unsafe_precondition` and can even add a newline.
* It would be nice to print a bit more information about where the problem is. Perhaps this is `cfg_attr(debug_assertions, track_caller)`, or perhaps it the function name added to `Location`.
cc ``@RalfJung`` this is what I was thinking of for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102732#discussion_r989068907
Use ptr::metadata in <[T]>::len implementation
This avoids duplication of ptr::metadata code.
I believe this is acceptable as the previous approach essentially duplicated `ptr::metadata` because back then `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable` annotation did not exist.
I would like somebody to ping `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` as the documentation says:
> Always ping `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` if you are adding more rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable attributes to any const fn.
Following up on #92964, only add default trait implementations for the
`c-unwind` family of function pointers. The previous attempt in #92964
added trait implementations for many more ABIs and ran into concerns
regarding the increase in size of the libcore rlib.
An attempt to abstract away function pointer types behind a unified
trait to reduce the duplication of trait impls is being discussed in #99531
but this change looks to be blocked on a lang MCP.
Following @RalfJung's suggestion in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99531#issuecomment-1233440142,
this commit is another cut at #92964 but it _only_ adds the impls for
`extern "C-unwind" fn` and `unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn`.
I am interested in landing this patch to unblock the stabilization of
the `c_unwind` feature.
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2945
Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
* Reduce duplicate impls; show only the `fn (T)` and include a sentence
saying that there exists up to twelve of them.
* Show `Copy` and `Clone`.
* Show auto traits like `Send` and `Sync`, and blanket impls like `Any`.
Add a special case for align_offset /w stride != 1
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
This generalizes the previous `stride == 1` special case to apply to any
situation where the requested alignment is divisible by the stride. This
in turn allows the test case from #98809 produce ideal assembly, along
the lines of:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
This also produces pretty high quality code for situations where the
alignment of the input pointer isn’t known:
pub unsafe fn ptr_u32(slice: *const u32) -> *const u32 {
slice.offset(slice.align_offset(16) as isize)
}
// =>
movl %edi, %eax
andl $3, %eax
leaq 15(%rdi), %rcx
andq $-16, %rcx
subq %rdi, %rcx
shrq $2, %rcx
negq %rax
sbbq %rax, %rax
orq %rcx, %rax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rax
Here LLVM is smart enough to replace the `usize::MAX` special case with
a branch-less bitwise-OR approach, where the mask is constructed using
the neg and sbb instructions. This appears to work across various
architectures I’ve tried.
This change ends up introducing more branches and code in situations
where there is less knowledge of the arguments. For example when the
requested alignment is entirely unknown. This use-case was never really
a focus of this function, so I’m not particularly worried, especially
since llvm-mca is saying that the new code is still appreciably faster,
despite all the new branching.
Fixes#98809.
Sadly, this does not help with #72356.
ptr::copy and ptr::swap are doing untyped copies
The consensus in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63159 seemed to be that these operations should be "untyped", i.e., they should treat the data as raw bytes, should work when these bytes violate the validity invariant of `T`, and should exactly preserve the initialization state of the bytes that are being copied. This is already somewhat implied by the description of "copying/swapping size*N bytes" (rather than "N instances of `T`").
The implementations mostly already work that way (well, for LLVM's intrinsics the documentation is not precise enough to say what exactly happens to poison, but if this ever gets clarified to something that would *not* perfectly preserve poison, then I strongly assume there will be some way to make a copy that *does* perfectly preserve poison). However, I had to adjust `swap_nonoverlapping`; after ``@scottmcm's`` [recent changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94212), that one (sometimes) made a typed copy. (Note that `mem::swap`, which works on mutable references, is unchanged. It is documented as "swapping the values at two mutable locations", which to me strongly indicates that it is indeed typed. It is also safe and can rely on `&mut T` pointing to a valid `T` as part of its safety invariant.)
On top of adding a test (that will be run by Miri), this PR then also adjusts the documentation to indeed stably promise the untyped semantics. I assume this means the PR has to go through t-libs (and maybe t-lang?) FCP.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63159
Extend ptr::null and null_mut to all thin (including extern) types
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93959
This change was accepted in https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2580-ptr-meta.html
Note that this changes the signature of **stable** functions. The change should be backward-compatible, but it is **insta-stable** since it cannot (easily, at all?) be made available only through a `#![feature(…)]` opt-in.
The RFC also proposed the same change for `NonNull::dangling`, which makes sense it terms of its signature but not in terms of its implementation. `dangling` uses `align_of()` as an address. But what `align_of()` should be for extern types or whether it should be allowed at all remains an open question.
This commit depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93977, which is not yet part of the bootstrap compiler. So `#[cfg]` is used to only apply the change in stage 1+. As far a I know bounds cannot be made conditional with `#[cfg]`, so the entire functions are duplicated. This is unfortunate but temporary.
Since this duplication makes it less obvious in the diff, the new definitions differ in:
* More permissive bounds (`Thin` instead of implied `Sized`)
* Different implementation
* Having `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(const_fn_trait_bound)`
* Having `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(ptr_metadata)`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93959
This change was accepted in https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2580-ptr-meta.html
Note that this changes the signature of **stable** functions.
The change should be backward-compatible, but it is **insta-stable**
since it cannot (easily, at all?) be made available only
through a `#![feature(…)]` opt-in.
The RFC also proposed the same change for `NonNull::dangling`,
which makes sense it terms of its signature but not in terms of its implementation.
`dangling` uses `align_of()` as an address. But what `align_of()` should be for
extern types or whether it should be allowed at all remains an open question.
This commit depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93977, which is not yet
part of the bootstrap compiler. So `#[cfg]` is used to only apply the change in
stage 1+. As far a I know bounds cannot be made conditional with `#[cfg]`, so the
entire functions are duplicated. This is unfortunate but temporary.
Since this duplication makes it less obvious in the diff,
the new definitions differ in:
* More permissive bounds (`Thin` instead of implied `Sized`)
* Different implementation
* Having `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(ptr_metadata)`
explicitly distinguish pointer::addr and pointer::expose_addr
``@bgeron`` pointed out that the current docs promise that `ptr.addr()` and `ptr as usize` are equivalent. I don't think that is a promise we want to make. (Conceptually, `ptr as usize` might 'escape' the provenance to enable future `usize as ptr` casts, but `ptr.addr()` dertainly does not do that.)
So I propose we word the docs a bit more carefully here. ``@Gankra`` what do you think?
Fix &mut invalidation in ptr::swap doctest
Under Stacked Borrows with raw pointer tagging, the previous code was UB
because the code which creates the the second pointer borrows the array
through a tag in the borrow stacks below the Unique tag that our first
pointer is based on, thus invalidating the first pointer.
This is not definitely a bug and may never be real UB, but I desperately
want people to write code that conforms to SB with raw pointer tagging
so that I can write good diagnostics. The alternative aliasing models
aren't possible to diagnose well due to state space explosion.
Therefore, it would be super cool if the standard library nudged people
towards writing code that is valid with respect to SB with raw pointer
tagging.
The diagnostics that I want to write are implemented in a branch of Miri and the one for this case is below:
```
error: Undefined Behavior: attempting a read access using <2170> at alloc1068[0x0], but that tag does not exist in the borrow stack for this location
--> /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs:2103:14
|
2103 | unsafe { copy_nonoverlapping(src, dst, count) }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| attempting a read access using <2170> at alloc1068[0x0], but that tag does not exist in the borrow stack for this location
| this error occurs as part of an access at alloc1068[0x0..0x8]
|
= help: this indicates a potential bug in the program: it performed an invalid operation, but the rules it violated are still experimental
= help: see https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/blob/master/wip/stacked-borrows.md for further information
help: <2170> was created due to a retag at offsets [0x0..0x10]
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:640:9
|
8 | let x = array[0..].as_mut_ptr() as *mut [u32; 2]; // this is `array[0..2]`
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: <2170> was later invalidated due to a retag at offsets [0x0..0x10]
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:641:9
|
9 | let y = array[2..].as_mut_ptr() as *mut [u32; 2]; // this is `array[2..4]`
| ^^^^^
= note: inside `std::intrinsics::copy_nonoverlapping::<[u32; 2]>` at /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs:2103:14
= note: inside `std::ptr::swap::<[u32; 2]>` at /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/ptr/mod.rs:685:9
note: inside `main::_doctest_main____libcore_src_ptr_mod_rs_635_0` at ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:12:5
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:644:5
|
12 | ptr::swap(x, y);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: inside `main` at ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:15:3
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:647:3
|
15 | } _doctest_main____libcore_src_ptr_mod_rs_635_0() }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: some details are omitted, run with `MIRIFLAGS=-Zmiri-backtrace=full` for a verbose backtrace
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Under Stacked Borrows with raw pointer tagging, the previous code was UB
because the code which creates the the second pointer borrows the array
through a tag in the borrow stacks below the Unique tag that our first
pointer is based on, thus invalidating the first pointer.
This is not definitely a bug and may never be real UB, but I desperately
want people to write code that conforms to SB with raw pointer tagging
so that I can write good diagnostics. The alternative aliasing models
aren't possible to diagnose well due to state space explosion.
Therefore, it would be super cool if the standard library nudged people
towards writing code that is valid with respect to SB with raw pointer
tagging.
Add debug assertions to some unsafe functions
As suggested by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51713
~~Some similar code calls `abort()` instead of `panic!()` but aborting doesn't work in a `const fn`, and the intrinsic for doing dispatch based on whether execution is in a const is unstable.~~
This picked up some invalid uses of `get_unchecked` in the compiler, and fixes them.
I can confirm that they do in fact pick up invalid uses of `get_unchecked` in the wild, though the user experience is less-than-awesome:
```
Running unittests (target/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/deps/rle_decode_fast-04b7918da2001b50)
running 6 tests
error: test failed, to rerun pass '--lib'
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully: `/home/ben/rle-decode-helper/target/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/deps/rle_decode_fast-04b7918da2001b50` (signal: 4, SIGILL: illegal instruction)
```
~~As best I can tell these changes produce a 6% regression in the runtime of `./x.py test` when `[rust] debug = true` is set.~~
Latest commit (6894d559bd) brings the additional overhead from this PR down to 0.5%, while also adding a few more assertions. I think this actually covers all the places in `core` that it is reasonable to check for safety requirements at runtime.
Thoughts?
Handle rustc_const_stable attribute in library feature collector
The library feature collector in [compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs](551b4fa395/compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs) has only been looking at `#[stable(…)]`, `#[unstable(…)]`, and `#[rustc_const_unstable(…)]` attributes, while ignoring `#[rustc_const_stable(…)]`. The consequences of this were:
- When any const feature got stabilized (changing one or more `rustc_const_unstable` to `rustc_const_stable`), users who had previously enabled that unstable feature using `#![feature(…)]` would get told "unknown feature", rather than rustc's nicer "the feature … has been stable since … and no longer requires an attribute to enable".
This can be seen in the way that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93957#issuecomment-1079794660 failed after rebase:
```console
error[E0635]: unknown feature `const_ptr_offset`
--> $DIR/offset_from_ub.rs:1:35
|
LL | #![feature(const_ptr_offset_from, const_ptr_offset)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
- We weren't enforcing that a particular feature is either stable everywhere or unstable everywhere, and that a feature that has been stabilized has the same stabilization version everywhere, both of which we enforce for the other stability attributes.
This PR updates the library feature collector to handle `rustc_const_stable`, and fixes places in the standard library and test suite where `rustc_const_stable` was being used in a way that does not meet the rules for a stability attribute.
