-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
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
Unsafety improvements #1683
Open
Radvendii
wants to merge
5
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
unsafety_improvements
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Unsafety improvements #1683
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b35b7cd
explicitly annotate lifetimes when unsafe is involved
Radvendii d5970b0
use &'a lifetime rather than &'self
Radvendii b652cbe
correctly drop Array::IntoIter
Radvendii 60afe78
revert earlier lifetime changes, but clarify comments
Radvendii 2d2061a
revert needless lifetimes
Radvendii File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
@Radvendii , it seems that it used to be the fact that the lifetime of the interner and the inner interner were the same one, before this change. Or am I misunderstanding something? Does your first example of UB still happens with the original code?
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.
Yes, it still happens with the original code.
Remember that in
Interner<'a>(RwLock<InnerInterner<'a>)
, there is nothing limiting'a
to the liferime of the Interner. If rust needs it to be'static
it will just insert'static
in here anyways, so specifying'static
doesn't allow any behaviour that wasn't allowed before.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.
Ah, I see. But it's a private item already, as is
InnerInterner
, so you can only access theInnerInterner
of an interner from within theidentifier::interner
module, is that right?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.
in fact, I start to believe that the lifetime of
InnerInterner
is useless, because we only ever instantiate it to static. So maybe we should just bite the bullet and usestatic
references, saying that they aren't static at all, but only the actual implementation ofInnerInterner
can touch it. And document as well that anInterner
should never ever change the underlying inner interner after construction. However, the inner interner being private should make it relatively ok. Another solution is to inline the inner interner in theInterner
to avoid this situation, but this means more locks, and more coupling. I don't know if this is worth the price: in any case, we should make it clear that this module has unsafe parts and that you shouldn't touch it unless you know what you're doing.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.
Another possibility is to explore
Pin
, which believe allows to express those kind of constraints (for example you can't swap aPin<..>
with something else, just drop it, which might be sufficient to avoid your UB example ?)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.
And finally, maybe we should use
NonNull
instead of references with lifetimes, which would avoid to lie about their lifetime (would still require unsafe, but at least won't make it possible to do conversion to&'static
from safe code)