Stabilize volatile copy and set functions

Stabilize the `volatile_copy_memory`, `volatile_copy_nonoverlapping_memory`
and `volatile_set_memory` intrinsics as `ptr::copy_volatile`,
`ptr::copy_nonoverlapping_volatile` and `ptr::write_bytes_volatile`,
respectively.

Signed-off-by: Dan Cross <cross@gajendra.net>

text/0000-volatile-copy-and-set.md

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+- Feature Name: volatile-copy-and-set
+- Start Date: 2019-04-17
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#00000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/00000)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Stabilize the `volatile_copy_memory`, `volatile_copy_nonoverlapping_memory`
+and `volatile_set_memory` intrinsics as `ptr::copy_volatile`,
+`ptr::copy_nonoverlapping_volatile` and `ptr::write_bytes_volatile`,
+respectively.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+`ptr::read_volatile` and `ptr::write_volatile` were stabilized in RFC
+[1467](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1467).  The stated motivation
+at the time was that this allowed "volatile access to memory-mapped I/O
+in stable code", something that was only previously possible using unstable
+intrinsics or "by abusing a bug in the `load` and `store` functions on
+atomic types which gives them volatile semantics
+([rust-lang/rust#30962](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/30962))."
+
+At the time, the decision was made not to also provide stable
+interfaces for the `volatile_copy_memory` or `volatile_set_memory`
+intrinsics, as they were "not used often" nor provided in C.
+However, when writing low-level code, it is sometimes also useful
+to be able to execute volatile copy and set operations.
+
+For example, when booting x86_64 "application processor" (AP) logical
+processors, code copies a sequence of instructions that for the AP to
+execute into a page in low physical memory, and then sends a startup
+inter-processor interrupt (SIPI) to the AP's local interrupt
+controller: the target interrupt vector number given in the SIPI is
+multiplied by the page size to determine the physical memory address
+where the AP should start executing.  So a SIPI sent to vector 7 of
+an AP causes that processor to begin executing instructions at
+physical memory address 0x7000.
+
+That is:
+
+```
+extern "C" {
+    fn copy_proto_page_to_phys_mem(src: usize, phys: u64);
+    fn send_init_ipi(cpu: u32);
+    fn send_sipi(cpu: u32, vector: u8);
+
+    static INIT_CODE: *const u8;
+    static INIT_CODE_LEN: usize;
+}
+
+// A contrived type for illustration; not actually useful.
+pub struct SIPIPage {
+    // Note that `bytes` is not visible outside of `SIPIPage`.
+    bytes: [u8; 4096],
+}
+
+impl SIPIPage {
+    // Note that the _only_ operation on the `bytes` field
+    // of `SIPIPage` is in `new`.  The compiler could, in
+    // theory, elide the `copy`.
+    pub fn new() -> SIPIPage {
+        let mut bytes = [0; 4096];
+        unsafe {
+            core::ptr::copy(INIT_CODE, bytes.as_mut_ptr(), INIT_CODE_LEN);
+        }
+        SIPIPage { bytes }
+    }
+}
+
+fn main() {
+    let proto_sipi_page = SIPIPage::new();
+    let some_core = 2;
+    unsafe {
+        copy_proto_page_to_phys_mem(&proto_sipi_page as *const _ as usize, 0x7000);
+        send_init_ipi(some_core);
+        send_sipi(some_core, 7);
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Obviously this is an unlikely way of initializing the SIPI page and
+a real kernel would not do it this way.
+
+Hoever, this code snippet is specifically constructed such that the
+sequence of sending IPIs makes no reference to `proto_sipi_page` and
+since the `bytes` field is not visible outside of `new`, this
+illustrates a situation in which the compiler _could_ theoretically
+elect to elide the copy.
+
+If this sequenced used `core::ptr::copy_volatile` then the compiler
+would know that the copy had some externally visible side-effect
+and could not be elided.
+
+When writing a multi-processor operating system kernel for x86_64 in
+Rust, the programmer would copy the instruction text to some address
+and write to the local programmable interrupt controller to send a
+SIPI to start AP cores, but from the compiler's perspective, it might
+appear that the memory holding the AP startup code is never referred
+to again.  The compiler could potentially choose to elide the copy
+entirely, and the AP might start executing junk instructions from
+uninitialized memory.  In the worst case, this may silently corrupt
+kernel state.
+
+Using a volatile copy can inform the compiler that there is an
+externally observable side-effect forcing it to preserve the copy.
+Similarly, volatile "write_bytes" allows a program to preserve a
+write that has some side-effect (for example, initializing register
+state in a device, or clearing a frame buffer).
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+Given these operations, one would write, for example, the following:
+
+```
+#[no_mangle]
+pub unsafe extern "C" fn maybe_called_via_ffi(ptr: *mut u8; len: usize) {
+    println!("this function has a side-effect, and it is not just the println!");
+    core::ptr::write_bytes_volatile(ptr, SOME_DATA, SOME_DATA_LEN);
+}
+```
+
+and assert that the `write_bytes_volatile` call is not be elided.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+`ptr::copy_volatile`, `ptr::copy_nonoverlapping_volatile` and
+`ptr::write_bytes_volatile` will work the same way as `ptr::copy`,
+`ptr_copy_nonoverlapping` and `ptr::write_bytes` respectively, but
+with volatile semantics.  As stated in RFC 1467, "the semantics of
+a volatile access are already pretty well defined by the C standard.
+
+We further propose enhancing the documentation for these functions
+to the same level of the existing volatile functions.
+
+Documentation presently refers to LLVM implementation details
+to explain the memory model, etc, here:
+http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#volatile-memory-accesses.
+We propose modifying existing documentation, and writing new
+docuemntation, referring to the memory model in the C standard
+instead.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Volatile semantics are not well defined by the C standard, but
+that is out of the scope of this proposal.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+The intrinsics operations already exist and have the semantics
+required by operating system implementors and others.
+
+There are several alternatives, each with their own drawbacks:
+
+1.  Continue using the unstable `core_intrinsics` feature and use the
+    existing unstable intrinsics.  However, this ties the programmer
+    to unstable Rust, which is undesirable in some environments.
+2.  Use the existing copy and set interfaces without volatile qualifiers
+    and hope that the compiler does not elide the relevant calls.  While
+    likely workable in practice for most likely scenarios, this could
+    lead to surprising behavior if the compiler ever incorporates
+    sufficiently advanced analyses that allow it to determine that those
+    elisions are possible from its perspective.  Hope is not a strategy.
+3.  Use the foreign function interface to call separately written code
+    in another language that provides the required semantics.  This
+    is inelegant and complicates the build process.
+4.  Hand-code copy and set loops in terms of the existing `write_volatile`
+    function.  This is inelegant, leads to duplicated code, and opens
+    up the possibility of bugs.  For example, compare:
+
+    ```
+        for (i, elem) in some_slice.iter().enumerate() {
+            unsafe {
+                core::ptr::write_volatile(&mut dest[i], *elem);
+            }
+        }
+    ```
+    to,
+    ```
+        unsafe {
+            core::ptr::copy_volatile(some_slice.as_ptr(), dest.as_mut_ptr(), some_slice.len());
+        }
+    ```
+
+Finally, it is important that this proposal not tie the Rust language
+to the semantics of any given implementation, such as those defined by
+LLVM.  Futher Rust does not yet have a well-defined memory model we can
+refer to for defining volatile behavior, and C does not define volatile
+`memset`, `memcpy` or `memmove` functions.  However, since the existing
+`core::ptr::write_volatile` and `core::ptr::read_volatile` functions
+are implemented in terms of well-defined semantics, it makes sense to
+use similar semantics here.  We therefore specify that
+`copy_volatile`, `copy_nonoverlapping_volatile` and
+`write_bytes_volatile` adopt semantics similar to those of `read_volatile`
+and `write_volatile`: resulting loads and stores cannot be elided, and
+the relative order to loads and stores cannot be reordered with respect
+to one another, though other operations can be reordered with respect
+to volatile operations.
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+Other languages support volatile style accesses, notably C and C++.
+Interestingly, volatile semantics in those languages are associated with
+individual objects, and `volatile` is a type qualifier, not an operaton
+attribute.  In those systems, any number of operations on a
+volatile-qualified datum result in volatile memory semantics; since
+any identifier used by the standard library is defined to be reserved
+for special treatment by the compiler, this means that the standard
+`memcpy`, `memmove` and `memset` operations can all be expected to exhibit
+volatile semantics if applied to volatle-qualified objects.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+None.
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+A some point, a well-defined memory model for Rust may be stabilized that
+would widen the design space and permit revisiting these primitives.  For
+example, "volatile" currently means that a write cannot be elided, but it
+also imposes strict ordering semantics with respect to other volatile
+accesses.  One can envision a sufficiently rich memory model that one
+might be some way to specify an "unelidable" write, but without ordering
+constraints.