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

refactor the unsafe checking to work on the THIR #402

Closed
3 tasks done
nikomatsakis opened this issue Jan 21, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed
3 tasks done

refactor the unsafe checking to work on the THIR #402

nikomatsakis opened this issue Jan 21, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc major-change-accepted A major change proposal that was accepted T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team

Comments

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

nikomatsakis commented Jan 21, 2021

Proposal

Unsafe checking is presently implemented on MIR. However, we have a steady stream of problems related to this -- in particular, the lang team generally expects unsafe checking to be "syntactic' in nature, but MIR is not mapped to syntax very closely. This means that we need special hacks to do things like require unsafe { } when dereferencing a raw pointer in dead code or other sitations. The most recent bug like this is rust-lang/rust#80059.

The reason we chose to implement Unsafe checking on MIR was because it was more desugared, and in particular we wanted to enforce some safety conditions on access to fields of packed structs (iirc). Finding all borrows is kind of difficult on HIR, and trivial in MIR. However, requiring unsafe code in dead code etc is trivial in HIR, and a pain in MIR. So what to do? (see caveat below).

I propose we rewrite the unsafe checker to operate on THIR. THIR is fully explicit about borrows and things but still basically an AST, like HIR, and therefore much easier to manage.

Caveat: borrows of fields on a packed struct are "insta-ub" (at least, if the field is not aligned), and not really just "unsafe". So preventing such borrows is not really the job of the unsafety checker; they should be outright rejected both inside and outside unsafe blocks (see rust-lang/rust#27060).

Mentors or Reviewers

I would be happy to mentor, but I am looking for someone to do the implementation work!

Process

The main points of the Major Change Process is as follows:

  • File an issue describing the proposal.
  • A compiler team member or contributor who is knowledgeable in the area can second by writing @rustbot second.
    • Finding a "second" suffices for internal changes. If however you are proposing a new public-facing feature, such as a -C flag, then full team check-off is required.
    • Compiler team members can initiate a check-off via @rfcbot fcp merge on either the MCP or the PR.
  • Once an MCP is seconded, the Final Comment Period begins. If no objections are raised after 10 days, the MCP is considered approved.

You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.

Comments

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

@nikomatsakis nikomatsakis added T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc labels Jan 21, 2021
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 21, 2021

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

cc @rust-lang/compiler @rust-lang/compiler-contributors

@rustbot rustbot added the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Jan 21, 2021
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Jan 26, 2021

@rustbot second

@rustbot rustbot added the final-comment-period The FCP has started, most (if not all) team members are in agreement label Jan 26, 2021
@apiraino apiraino removed the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Jan 28, 2021
@apiraino apiraino added major-change-accepted A major change proposal that was accepted and removed final-comment-period The FCP has started, most (if not all) team members are in agreement labels Feb 10, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Feb 10, 2021
@apiraino apiraino removed the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Feb 11, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc major-change-accepted A major change proposal that was accepted T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants