-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Treat safe target_feature functions as unsafe by default #134317
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy cc @rust-lang/clippy Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval |
if b_hdr.safety == hir::Safety::Safe | ||
&& !self.tcx.codegen_fn_attrs(def_id).target_features.is_empty() | ||
if b_hdr.safety.is_safe() | ||
&& matches!(a_sig.safety(), hir::Safety::Unsafe { target_feature: true }) |
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.
As mentioned in #134090 (comment), we might want to make this actually safe if the function this happens in has the required features.
We probably shouldn't change it now, but we might want to modify the comment/FIXME accordingly
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.
If the features are also set via target information that can't differ between crates linked together?
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.
Not sure if doing so is supposed to be ok...
Anyway, I guess the point of the comment is that if you can call a function, then you also ought to be able to take a safe fn pointer to it.
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.
But safe pointers can be passed around to code where it's not safe to use them.
With the change I made (plus encoding the actually used target features) we can in theory start creating safe target feature pointers by keeping the target feature information on the function pointer type.
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.
target_feature_11 enables this:
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() -> fn() {
|| avx2()
}
which is not particularly different from allowing coercion of avx2
to a fn pointer. If you have concerns about this, the stabilization PR is probably the better place to discuss it (the stabilization report mentions why it's OK to do this)
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.
Oh right, yea that makes sense. You already had to call an unsafe function to get here, and it's not a footgun, because it's global informatiom, not local
@@ -2521,8 +2521,14 @@ impl<'tcx> TyCtxt<'tcx> { | |||
/// that is, a `fn` type that is equivalent in every way for being | |||
/// unsafe. | |||
pub fn safe_to_unsafe_fn_ty(self, sig: PolyFnSig<'tcx>) -> Ty<'tcx> { | |||
assert_eq!(sig.safety(), hir::Safety::Safe); | |||
Ty::new_fn_ptr(self, sig.map_bound(|sig| ty::FnSig { safety: hir::Safety::Unsafe, ..sig })) | |||
matches!(sig.safety(), hir::Safety::Safe | hir::Safety::Unsafe { target_feature: true }); |
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.
Didn't this drop an assertion?
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.
Oh huh
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
This unblocks
As I stated in #134090 (comment) I think the previous impl was too easy to get wrong, as by default it treated safe target feature functions as safe and had to add additional checks for when they weren't. Now the logic is inverted. By default they are unsafe and you have to explicitly handle safe target feature functions.
I will make another version of this PR that doesn't modify the safety enum but just checks the attrs. Should be less invasive