-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
implement RFC 1238: nonparametric dropck. #28861
Changes from 11 commits
9868df2
d778e57
eea299b
83077be
5708f44
7a4743f
92da3f9
e2e261f
7eda5b5
73f35cf
9ed5faa
61f8def
b6a4f03
e1aba75
34076bc
a445f23
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -115,13 +115,160 @@ section: | |
**For a generic type to soundly implement drop, its generics arguments must | ||
strictly outlive it.** | ||
|
||
This rule is sufficient but not necessary to satisfy the drop checker. That is, | ||
if your type obeys this rule then it's definitely sound to drop. However | ||
there are special cases where you can fail to satisfy this, but still | ||
successfully pass the borrow checker. These are the precise rules that are | ||
currently up in the air. | ||
Obeying this rule is (usually) necessary to satisfy the borrow | ||
checker; obeying it is sufficient but not necessary to be | ||
sound. That is, if your type obeys this rule then it's definitely | ||
sound to drop. | ||
|
||
The reason that it is not always necessary to satisfy the above rule | ||
is that some Drop implementations will not access borrowed data even | ||
though their type gives them the capability for such access. | ||
|
||
For example, this variant of the above `Inspector` example will never | ||
accessed borrowed data: | ||
|
||
```rust,ignore | ||
struct Inspector<'a>(&'a u8, &'static str); | ||
|
||
impl<'a> Drop for Inspector<'a> { | ||
fn drop(&mut self) { | ||
println!("Inspector(_, {}) knows when *not* to inspect.", self.1); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
fn main() { | ||
let (inspector, days); | ||
days = Box::new(1); | ||
inspector = Inspector(&days, "gadget"); | ||
// Let's say `days` happens to get dropped first. | ||
// Even when Inspector is dropped, its destructor will not access the | ||
// borrowed `days`. | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Likewise, this variant will also never access borrowed data: | ||
|
||
```rust,ignore | ||
use std::fmt; | ||
|
||
struct Inspector<T: fmt::Display>(T, &'static str); | ||
|
||
impl<T: fmt::Display> Drop for Inspector<T> { | ||
fn drop(&mut self) { | ||
println!("Inspector(_, {}) knows when *not* to inspect.", self.1); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
fn main() { | ||
let (inspector, days): (Inspector<&u8>, Box<u8>); | ||
days = Box::new(1); | ||
inspector = Inspector(&days, "gadget"); | ||
// Let's say `days` happens to get dropped first. | ||
// Even when Inspector is dropped, its destructor will not access the | ||
// borrowed `days`. | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
However, *both* of the above variants are rejected by the borrow | ||
checker during the analysis of `fn main`, saying that `days` does not | ||
live long enough. | ||
|
||
The reason is that the borrow checking analysis of `main` does not | ||
know about the internals of each Inspector's Drop implementation. As | ||
far as the borrow checker knows while it is analyzing `main`, the body | ||
of an inspector's destructor might access that borrowed data. | ||
|
||
Therefore, the drop checker forces all borrowed data in a value to | ||
strictly outlive that value. | ||
|
||
# An Escape Hatch | ||
|
||
The precise rules that govern drop checking may be less restrictive in | ||
the future. | ||
|
||
The current analysis is deliberately conservative; forcing all | ||
borrowed data in a value to outlive that value is certainly sound. | ||
|
||
Future versions of the language may improve its precision (i.e. to | ||
reduce the number of cases where sound code is rejected as unsafe). | ||
|
||
In the meantime, there is an unstable attribute that one can use to | ||
assert (unsafely) that a generic type's destructor is *guaranteed* to | ||
not access any expired data, even if its type gives it the capability | ||
to do so. | ||
|
||
That attribute is called `unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params`. | ||
To deploy it on the Inspector example from above, we would write: | ||
|
||
```rust,ignore | ||
struct Inspector<'a>(&'a u8, &'static str); | ||
|
||
impl<'a> Drop for Inspector<'a> { | ||
#[unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params] | ||
fn drop(&mut self) { | ||
println!("Inspector(_, {}) knows when *not* to inspect.", self.1); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This attribute has the word `unsafe` in it because the compiler is not | ||
checking the implicit assertion that no potentially expired data | ||
(e.g. `self.0` above) is accessed. | ||
|
||
It is sometimes obvious that no such access can occur, like the case above. | ||
However, when dealing with a generic type parameter, such access can | ||
occur indirectly. Examples of such indirect access are: | ||
* invoking a callback, | ||
* via a trait method call. | ||
|
||
(Future changes to the language, such as impl specialization, may add | ||
other avenues for such indirect access.) | ||
|
||
Here is an example of invoking a callback: | ||
|
||
```rust,ignore | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit: pointless use of |
||
struct Inspector<T>(T, &'static str, Box<for <'r> fn(&'r T) -> String>); | ||
|
||
impl<T> Drop for Inspector<T> { | ||
fn drop(&mut self) { | ||
// The `self.2` call could access a borrow e.g. if `T` is `&'a _`. | ||
println!("Inspector({}, {}) unwittingly inspects expired data.", | ||
(self.2)(&self.0), self.1); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Here is an example of a trait method call: | ||
|
||
```rust,ignore | ||
use std::fmt; | ||
|
||
struct Inspector<T: fmt::Display>(T, &'static str); | ||
|
||
impl<T: fmt::Display> Drop for Inspector<T> { | ||
fn drop(&mut self) { | ||
// There is a hidden call to `<T as Display>::fmt` below, which | ||
// could access a borrow e.g. if `T` is `&'a _` | ||
println!("Inspector({}, {}) unwittingly inspects expired data.", | ||
self.0, self.1); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
And of course, all of these accesses could be further hidden within | ||
some other method invoked by the destructor, rather than being written | ||
directly within it. | ||
|
||
In all of the above cases where the `&'a u8` is accessed in the | ||
destructor, adding the `#[unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params]` | ||
attribute makes the type vulnerable to misuse that the borrower | ||
checker will not catch, inviting havoc. It is better to avoid adding | ||
the attribute. | ||
|
||
# Is that all about drop checker? | ||
|
||
It turns out that when writing unsafe code, we generally don't need to | ||
worry at all about doing the right thing for the drop checker. However there | ||
is one special case that you need to worry about, which we will look at in | ||
the next section. | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -566,84 +566,25 @@ impl<'tcx> ty::ctxt<'tcx> { | |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
/// Returns true if this ADT is a dtorck type, i.e. whether it being | ||
/// safe for destruction requires it to be alive | ||
/// Returns true if this ADT is a dtorck type, i.e. whether it | ||
/// being safe for destruction requires all borrowed pointers | ||
/// reachable by it to have lifetimes strictly greater than self. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit: I used "alive" intentionally - phantom lifetimes are just as important as borrowed pointers here. "Greater than self" is also not entirely accurate - you can totally have a Maybe /// Returns whether this ADT is a dtorck type. If not, it
/// is safe to call this type's destructor even when it does
/// not actually outlive the call, as long as its contents
/// remain destruction-safe. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. hmm, well that's better than the previous use of "alive", which I thought was too easy to misinterpret. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I wrote it before the "outlives" reform. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (I still have some doubts about the wording. E.g. the phrase "even when it does not actually outlive the call [to the destructor]" troubles me, probably because I am having problems choosing a consistent denotation for "it" and "outlives".) I'll try to come up with something better that still satisfies the constraints you listed above. |
||
pub fn is_adt_dtorck(&self, adt: ty::AdtDef<'tcx>) -> bool { | ||
let dtor_method = match adt.destructor() { | ||
Some(dtor) => dtor, | ||
None => return false | ||
}; | ||
let impl_did = self.impl_of_method(dtor_method).unwrap_or_else(|| { | ||
self.sess.bug(&format!("no Drop impl for the dtor of `{:?}`", adt)) | ||
}); | ||
let generics = adt.type_scheme(self).generics; | ||
|
||
// In `impl<'a> Drop ...`, we automatically assume | ||
// `'a` is meaningful and thus represents a bound | ||
// through which we could reach borrowed data. | ||
// | ||
// FIXME (pnkfelix): In the future it would be good to | ||
// extend the language to allow the user to express, | ||
// in the impl signature, that a lifetime is not | ||
// actually used (something like `where 'a: ?Live`). | ||
if generics.has_region_params(subst::TypeSpace) { | ||
debug!("typ: {:?} has interesting dtor due to region params", | ||
adt); | ||
return true; | ||
} | ||
|
||
let mut seen_items = Vec::new(); | ||
let mut items_to_inspect = vec![impl_did]; | ||
while let Some(item_def_id) = items_to_inspect.pop() { | ||
if seen_items.contains(&item_def_id) { | ||
continue; | ||
} | ||
|
||
for pred in self.lookup_predicates(item_def_id).predicates { | ||
let result = match pred { | ||
ty::Predicate::Equate(..) | | ||
ty::Predicate::RegionOutlives(..) | | ||
ty::Predicate::TypeOutlives(..) | | ||
ty::Predicate::WellFormed(..) | | ||
ty::Predicate::ObjectSafe(..) | | ||
ty::Predicate::Projection(..) => { | ||
// For now, assume all these where-clauses | ||
// may give drop implementation capabilty | ||
// to access borrowed data. | ||
true | ||
} | ||
|
||
ty::Predicate::Trait(ty::Binder(ref t_pred)) => { | ||
let def_id = t_pred.trait_ref.def_id; | ||
if self.trait_items(def_id).len() != 0 { | ||
// If trait has items, assume it adds | ||
// capability to access borrowed data. | ||
true | ||
} else { | ||
// Trait without items is itself | ||
// uninteresting from POV of dropck. | ||
// | ||
// However, may have parent w/ items; | ||
// so schedule checking of predicates, | ||
items_to_inspect.push(def_id); | ||
// and say "no capability found" for now. | ||
false | ||
} | ||
} | ||
}; | ||
|
||
if result { | ||
debug!("typ: {:?} has interesting dtor due to generic preds, e.g. {:?}", | ||
adt, pred); | ||
return true; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
seen_items.push(item_def_id); | ||
} | ||
|
||
debug!("typ: {:?} is dtorck-safe", adt); | ||
false | ||
// RFC 1238: if the destructor method is tagged with the | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This whole method should be There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Oh, yes, this code as it stands could be reduced to that. My intention had originally been to continue returning Looking now, I see that the RFC directly says in its description of UGEH that the attribute "will allow a destructor to side-step the dropck's constraints." For some reason while writing the RFC I had thought that was only talking about the type parameters (that's why there's the explicit alternative of having UGEH for lifetime parameters). But at this point, I don't see much reason to stick with my original interpretation. This one (where UGEH causes all constraints to be ignored) is easier to explain and implement. |
||
// attribute `unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params`, then the | ||
// compiler is being instructed to *assume* that the | ||
// destructor will not access borrowed data, | ||
// even if such data is otherwise reachable. | ||
// | ||
// Such access can be in plain sight (e.g. dereferencing | ||
// `*foo.0` of `Foo<'a>(&'a u32)`) or indirectly hidden | ||
// (e.g. calling `foo.0.clone()` of `Foo<T:Clone>`). | ||
return !self.has_attr(dtor_method, "unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params"); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wouldn't really call the current analysis conservative (even though it is), given that it just doesn't care about the destructor.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
... it cares that the Drop impl exists, and is not attempting any sort of parametricity analysis of how the type parameters are used in the type structure.
To me, that consists of a more conservative analysis.
Are you arguing that I should be also pointing out that it is now a trivial analysis?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that is a better way to put it - we require the programmer to specify whether a destructor is safe to call given only destruction-safety.