target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631

nikomatsakis · 2020-06-22T20:44:46Z

This example currently gives an error (playground):

#![feature(target_feature_11)]

#[target_feature(enable="avx")]
fn also_use_avx() {
    println!("Hello from AVX")
}

#[target_feature(enable="avx")]
fn use_avx() -> Box<dyn Fn()> {
    Box::new(|| also_use_avx())
}

fn main() {
}

Should it? @joshtriplett made the case that, once you enter use_avx, you have demonstrated that the target feature is present on your system, so it would make sense for closures declared within that item to "inherit" the target features from their enclosing function items (i.e., be able to invoke target-feature functions that require them, and probably also get the attributes declared within LLVM).

Some questions:

Is there some notion of "scoped" target features? i.e., as the example demonstrates, this allows target-feature functions to "escape" into the wider world, is that a problem?
If closures do inherit, should they still be considered to implement FnOnce etc? (See target_feature_11 allows bypassing safety checks through Fn* traits #72012)
Would we want the ability to explicitly annotate closures with #[target_feature(...)]? If so, that would presumably mean that explicitly annotated closures cannot implement FnOnce, which might be surprising and non-obvious.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

nikomatsakis · 2020-06-22T20:46:00Z

cc @hanna-kruppe, @petrochenkov

calebzulawski · 2020-06-23T01:54:51Z

I have run into boxed closures performing poorly, it isn't obvious that something like this would be exceptionally slow--orders of magnitude worse than the naive version since each intrinsic results in a callq:

#[target_feature(enable = "avx")]
fn add_op(value: f32) -> Box<dyn Fn(&mut [f32])> {
    use std::arch::x86_64::*;
    Box::new(move |x: &mut [f32]| {
        for s in x.chunks_mut(8) {
            unsafe {
                _mm256_storeu_ps(
                    s.as_mut_ptr(),
                    _mm256_add_ps(_mm256_loadu_ps(s.as_ptr()), _mm256_set1_ps(value)),
                );
            }
        }
    })
}

Not related to closures, but inheriting features, should creating function pointers be allowed as well? For example:

#[target_feature(enable = "avx")]
fn foo() {}

#[target_feature(enable = "avx")]
fn bar() -> fn() {
    foo
}

nikomatsakis · 2020-06-23T20:39:28Z

@calebzulawski I think any performance implications of boxing are pretty orthogonal to the question at hand.

The question of coercing to a fn pointer, though, is pretty germane. I think that should probably be supported, yes, by the same logic.

(I guess it would be unsafe to do outside of a suitable target-feature function?)

calebzulawski · 2020-06-23T22:56:46Z

Sorry if I was unclear--I was referring to the fact that the intrinsics fail to inline into the closure despite it appearing within a target-feature function, unrelated to the implication of boxing the closure. Pre-target-feature-1.1 this is particularly non-obvious because the unsafe block is always required and there is no indication that the closure isn't inheriting the features.

nikomatsakis · 2020-07-01T15:51:38Z

@rfcbot fcp merge

Having heard no objections, I'd like to call this to question. Dear @rust-lang/lang I propose that we make the change described in the OP for the reasons that were outlined there.

rfcbot · 2020-07-01T15:51:39Z

Team member @nikomatsakis has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

nikomatsakis · 2020-07-06T19:47:36Z

Discussed this in our @rust-lang/lang meeting today. Notes from our minutes:

Assumption that this makes is that once you run code with a given target feature, you will always have that target feature available.
In theory you could have some complex architecture where you have asymmetric multiprocessing that has distinct capabilities:
- But this would break a huge amount of code in the wild that assumes you can check the CPUID once and then cache that result.
- There has been discussion in the linux community that in such a scenario, you would get back the universal subset available, and would have to “opt in” to observing features that are specific to your sort of core.
New type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB”.
- We could change this in the future if we need to deal with complex asymmetric multiprocessing scenarios as described above.
Definition of the unsafe proof obligation to call a target-feature:
- You must show that the target-feature is available while the function executes and whatever may escape from that function.
- This emphasized condition is trivial in the case where cpu features never change.
- In a hybrid architecture where cpu features can change, you would have to know whether fn and closure pointers escape and for how long. This may imply new annotations that assure you that they do not escape or perhaps adding a lifetime annotation.
  - Lifetime annotations could also be useful for dynamic loading/unloading scenarios where functions get unloaded.

nikomatsakis · 2020-07-20T19:51:08Z

Ping @cramertj @pnkfelix and @withoutboats -- checkbox

dbdr · 2020-09-01T14:44:21Z

I was also expecting inner functions to inherit the target-feature annotations of the outer function. Can this question fit here or does it warrant a separate issue?

workingjubilee · 2020-09-12T01:18:47Z

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand everything at hand, but would this not implicitly resolve #64609 question about the Rust calling convention / ABI in favor of yes? Or at least move it much closer to, thus bringing a soundness hole closer to resolution?

rfcbot · 2020-09-15T23:46:47Z

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

rfcbot · 2020-09-25T23:53:50Z

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

The RFC will be merged soon.

…re-11, r=estebank Stabilize `#![feature(target_feature_11)]` ## Stabilization report ### Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` ### Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/b67ba9ba208ac918228a18321fc3a11a99b1c62b/src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/). ### Edge cases - rust-lang#73631 Closures defined inside functions marked with `#[target_feature]` inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with `#[target_feature]`, you must show that the target-feature is available while the function executes *and* for as long as whatever may escape from that function lives. ### Documentation - Reference: rust-lang/reference#1181 --- cc tracking issue rust-lang#69098 r? `@ghost`

…re-11, r=estebank Stabilize `#![feature(target_feature_11)]` ## Stabilization report ### Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` ### Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/b67ba9ba208ac918228a18321fc3a11a99b1c62b/src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/). ### Edge cases - rust-lang#73631 Closures defined inside functions marked with `#[target_feature]` inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with `#[target_feature]`, you must show that the target-feature is available while the function executes *and* for as long as whatever may escape from that function lives. ### Documentation - Reference: rust-lang/reference#1181 --- cc tracking issue rust-lang#69098 r? ``@ghost``

…-11, r=estebank Stabilize `#![feature(target_feature_11)]` ## Stabilization report ### Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` ### Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/b67ba9ba208ac918228a18321fc3a11a99b1c62b/src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/). ### Edge cases - rust-lang#73631 Closures defined inside functions marked with `#[target_feature]` inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with `#[target_feature]`, you must show that the target-feature is available while the function executes *and* for as long as whatever may escape from that function lives. ### Documentation - Reference: rust-lang/reference#1181 --- cc tracking issue rust-lang#69098 r? `@ghost`

…tebank Stabilize `#![feature(target_feature_11)]` ## Stabilization report ### Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` ### Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/b67ba9ba208ac918228a18321fc3a11a99b1c62b/src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/). ### Edge cases - rust-lang/rust#73631 Closures defined inside functions marked with `#[target_feature]` inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with `#[target_feature]`, you must show that the target-feature is available while the function executes *and* for as long as whatever may escape from that function lives. ### Documentation - Reference: rust-lang/reference#1181 --- cc tracking issue #69098 r? `@ghost`

Stabilize target_feature_11 # Stabilization report This is an updated version of rust-lang#116114, which is itself a redo of rust-lang#99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks `@LeSeulArtichaut` and `@calebzulawski!` ## Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` Moreover, once rust-lang#135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe: ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() -> fn() { // Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here. avx2 } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() -> fn() { // `avx2` coerces to fn() here avx2 } ``` See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour. ## Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/f6cb952dc115fd1311b02b694933e31d8dc8b002/tests/ui/target-feature). ## Edge cases ### Closures * [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? rust-lang#73631](rust-lang#73631) Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute. This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and: - on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call. - on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller. If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again). **Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in rust-lang#73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” . This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/blob/2e29bdf90832931ea499755bb4ad7a6b0809295a/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope". * [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 rust-lang#111836](rust-lang#111836) Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility. ### ABI concerns * [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features rust-lang#116558](rust-lang#116558) The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (rust-lang#133102, rust-lang#132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur. ### Special functions The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods. This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs: * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` rust-lang#108645](rust-lang#108645) * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations rust-lang#108646](rust-lang#108646) * [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 rust-lang#109411](rust-lang#109411) * [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions rust-lang#115910](rust-lang#115910) ## Documentation * Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](rust-lang/reference#1181) --- cc tracking issue rust-lang#69098 cc `@workingjubilee` cc `@RalfJung` r? `@rust-lang/lang`

Stabilize target_feature_11 # Stabilization report This is an updated version of rust-lang#116114, which is itself a redo of rust-lang#99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ``@LeSeulArtichaut`` and ``@calebzulawski!`` ## Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` Moreover, once rust-lang#135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe: ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() -> fn() { // Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here. avx2 } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() -> fn() { // `avx2` coerces to fn() here avx2 } ``` See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour. ## Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/f6cb952dc115fd1311b02b694933e31d8dc8b002/tests/ui/target-feature). ## Edge cases ### Closures * [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? rust-lang#73631](rust-lang#73631) Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute. This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and: - on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call. - on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller. If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again). **Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in rust-lang#73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” . This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/blob/2e29bdf90832931ea499755bb4ad7a6b0809295a/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope". * [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 rust-lang#111836](rust-lang#111836) Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility. ### ABI concerns * [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features rust-lang#116558](rust-lang#116558) The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (rust-lang#133102, rust-lang#132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur. ### Special functions The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods. This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs: * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` rust-lang#108645](rust-lang#108645) * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations rust-lang#108646](rust-lang#108646) * [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 rust-lang#109411](rust-lang#109411) * [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions rust-lang#115910](rust-lang#115910) ## Documentation * Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](rust-lang/reference#1181) --- cc tracking issue rust-lang#69098 cc ``@workingjubilee`` cc ``@RalfJung`` r? ``@rust-lang/lang``

Stabilize target_feature_11 # Stabilization report This is an updated version of rust-lang#116114, which is itself a redo of rust-lang#99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ```@LeSeulArtichaut``` and ```@calebzulawski!``` ## Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` Moreover, once rust-lang#135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe: ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() -> fn() { // Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here. avx2 } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() -> fn() { // `avx2` coerces to fn() here avx2 } ``` See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour. ## Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/f6cb952dc115fd1311b02b694933e31d8dc8b002/tests/ui/target-feature). ## Edge cases ### Closures * [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? rust-lang#73631](rust-lang#73631) Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute. This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and: - on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call. - on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller. If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again). **Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in rust-lang#73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” . This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/blob/2e29bdf90832931ea499755bb4ad7a6b0809295a/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope". * [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 rust-lang#111836](rust-lang#111836) Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility. ### ABI concerns * [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features rust-lang#116558](rust-lang#116558) The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (rust-lang#133102, rust-lang#132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur. ### Special functions The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods. This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs: * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` rust-lang#108645](rust-lang#108645) * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations rust-lang#108646](rust-lang#108646) * [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 rust-lang#109411](rust-lang#109411) * [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions rust-lang#115910](rust-lang#115910) ## Documentation * Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](rust-lang/reference#1181) --- cc tracking issue rust-lang#69098 cc ```@workingjubilee``` cc ```@RalfJung``` r? ```@rust-lang/lang```

Rollup merge of rust-lang#134090 - veluca93:stable-tf11, r=oli-obk Stabilize target_feature_11 # Stabilization report This is an updated version of rust-lang#116114, which is itself a redo of rust-lang#99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ```@LeSeulArtichaut``` and ```@calebzulawski!``` ## Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` Moreover, once rust-lang#135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe: ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() -> fn() { // Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here. avx2 } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() -> fn() { // `avx2` coerces to fn() here avx2 } ``` See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour. ## Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/f6cb952dc115fd1311b02b694933e31d8dc8b002/tests/ui/target-feature). ## Edge cases ### Closures * [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? rust-lang#73631](rust-lang#73631) Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute. This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and: - on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call. - on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller. If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again). **Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in rust-lang#73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” . This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/blob/2e29bdf90832931ea499755bb4ad7a6b0809295a/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope". * [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 rust-lang#111836](rust-lang#111836) Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility. ### ABI concerns * [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features rust-lang#116558](rust-lang#116558) The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (rust-lang#133102, rust-lang#132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur. ### Special functions The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods. This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs: * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` rust-lang#108645](rust-lang#108645) * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations rust-lang#108646](rust-lang#108646) * [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 rust-lang#109411](rust-lang#109411) * [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions rust-lang#115910](rust-lang#115910) ## Documentation * Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](rust-lang/reference#1181) --- cc tracking issue rust-lang#69098 cc ```@workingjubilee``` cc ```@RalfJung``` r? ```@rust-lang/lang```

Stabilize target_feature_11 # Stabilization report This is an updated version of rust-lang/rust#116114, which is itself a redo of rust-lang/rust#99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ```@LeSeulArtichaut``` and ```@calebzulawski!``` ## Summary Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes. Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits. However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe. ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() { // Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure // that AVX is available first. unsafe { avx2(); } } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() { // Calling `avx2` here is safe. avx2(); } ``` Moreover, once rust-lang/rust#135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe: ```rust // Demonstration function #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn avx2() {} fn foo() -> fn() { // Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here. avx2 } #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn bar() -> fn() { // `avx2` coerces to fn() here avx2 } ``` See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour. ## Test cases Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/f6cb952dc115fd1311b02b694933e31d8dc8b002/tests/ui/target-feature). ## Edge cases ### Closures * [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631](rust-lang/rust#73631) Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits. ```rust #[target_feature(enable = "avx2")] fn qux() { let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe let f: fn() = my_closure; } ``` This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute. This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and: - on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call. - on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller. If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again). **Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in #73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” . This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/blob/2e29bdf90832931ea499755bb4ad7a6b0809295a/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope". * [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 #111836](rust-lang/rust#111836) Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility. ### ABI concerns * [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features #116558](rust-lang/rust#116558) The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (#133102, #132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur. ### Special functions The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods. This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs: * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` #108645](rust-lang/rust#108645) * [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations #108646](rust-lang/rust#108646) * [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 #109411](rust-lang/rust#109411) * [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions #115910](rust-lang/rust#115910) ## Documentation * Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](rust-lang/reference#1181) --- cc tracking issue rust-lang/rust#69098 cc ```@workingjubilee``` cc ```@RalfJung``` r? ```@rust-lang/lang```

nikomatsakis added F-target_feature_11 target feature 1.1 RFC T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jun 22, 2020

This was referenced Jun 22, 2020

Tracking issue for target_feature 1.1 RFC #69098

Open

target_feature_11 allows bypassing safety checks through Fn* traits #72012

Closed

nikomatsakis mentioned this issue Jul 1, 2020

Don't implement Fn* traits for #[target_feature] functions #73306

Merged

rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. labels Jul 1, 2020

rfcbot added final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. labels Sep 15, 2020

rfcbot added finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. and removed final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. labels Sep 25, 2020

rfcbot added the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Sep 25, 2020

spastorino removed the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Oct 1, 2020

LeSeulArtichaut self-assigned this Oct 22, 2020

LeSeulArtichaut mentioned this issue Oct 22, 2020

Make closures inherit the parent function's target features #78231

Merged

bors closed this as completed in 00c4dcd Oct 23, 2020

LeSeulArtichaut mentioned this issue Aug 5, 2022

Stabilize #![feature(target_feature_11)] #99767

Merged

programmerjake mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2023

closure doesn't seem to inherit the target attributes for codegen purposes #108338

Closed

LeSeulArtichaut mentioned this issue Mar 2, 2023

target_feature_11 rejects code that was previously accepted #108655

Closed

workingjubilee added the A-target-feature Area: Enabling/disabling target features like AVX, Neon, etc. label Mar 3, 2023

LeSeulArtichaut mentioned this issue Mar 13, 2023

target_feature doesn't trickle down to closures and internal fns #58279

Open

calebzulawski mentioned this issue Sep 24, 2023

Stabilize target_feature_11 #116114

Closed

workingjubilee mentioned this issue Jun 15, 2024

Tracking issue for core::arch::{x86, x86_64}::has_cpuid #60123

Closed

veluca93 mentioned this issue Dec 9, 2024

Stabilize target_feature_11 #134090

Merged

oli-obk mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2025

Treat safe target_feature functions as unsafe by default [less invasive variant] #134353

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631

target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631

nikomatsakis commented Jun 22, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jun 22, 2020

calebzulawski commented Jun 23, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jun 23, 2020

calebzulawski commented Jun 23, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jul 1, 2020

rfcbot commented Jul 1, 2020 •

edited by cramertj

Loading

nikomatsakis commented Jul 6, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jul 20, 2020

dbdr commented Sep 1, 2020

workingjubilee commented Sep 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

rfcbot commented Sep 15, 2020

rfcbot commented Sep 25, 2020

target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631

target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631

Comments

nikomatsakis commented Jun 22, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jun 22, 2020

calebzulawski commented Jun 23, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jun 23, 2020

calebzulawski commented Jun 23, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jul 1, 2020

rfcbot commented Jul 1, 2020 • edited by cramertj Loading

nikomatsakis commented Jul 6, 2020

nikomatsakis commented Jul 20, 2020

dbdr commented Sep 1, 2020

workingjubilee commented Sep 12, 2020 • edited Loading

rfcbot commented Sep 15, 2020

rfcbot commented Sep 25, 2020

rfcbot commented Jul 1, 2020 •

edited by cramertj

Loading

workingjubilee commented Sep 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading