Skip to content
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

Fix borrow checker unsoundness with unions #47689

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 25, 2018

Conversation

davidtwco
Copy link
Member

@davidtwco davidtwco commented Jan 23, 2018

Fixes #45157. After discussion with @nikomatsakis on Gitter, this PR only adds a test since the original issue was resolved elsewhere.

r? @nikomatsakis

@davidtwco davidtwco changed the title Fix borrow checker unsoundness with unions WIP: Fix borrow checker unsoundness with unions Jan 23, 2018
@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

davidtwco commented Jan 23, 2018

Renamed this to be "WIP" since I've seen it fail some compile-fail errors that I'll need to look into. See PR description, only adding a test now.

let mut u = U { s: Default::default() };

let mref = &mut u.s.a; //~ ERROR cannot assign twice to immutable variable `mref` [E0384]
let err = &u.z.c; //~ ERROR cannot assign twice to immutable variable `err` [E0384]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The code as is should compile with nll. There needs to be a second use of mref to keep the borrow active for the second assignment.

debug!("place_element_conflict: DISJOINT-LOCAL");
Overlap::Disjoint
},
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is not quite right. Local variables should always be disjoint from one another. For example, borrowing x while y is borrowed should never be an error, no matter the type of x.

@davidtwco
Copy link
Member Author

Going to modify this PR to add a test to handle the case @nikomatsakis mentioned in the issue since whichever problem this issue originally referred to is now being handled.

@kennytm kennytm added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Jan 24, 2018
@davidtwco davidtwco changed the title WIP: Fix borrow checker unsoundness with unions Fix borrow checker unsoundness with unions Jan 24, 2018
| ^^^^^^ immutable borrow occurs here

error[E0502]: cannot borrow `u.s.a` as mutable because it is also borrowed as immutable
--> $DIR/issue-45157.rs:39:27
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This second error is a bit surprising. I don't quite understand what it is saying, it looks a bit fishy.

cc @pnkfelix -- agreed?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are you saying that there should be no error here at all? Or just that the error should be focused on prefixes of the field projections it is currently highlighting?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not think there should be an error at all, and certainly not with these spans. Usually something like this:

let mut a = 2;
let mref = &mut a;
let nref = &a;
println("{}{}", mref, nref);

gives only one error, right?

i.e., one borrow comes first, and it "wins"

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, looking into this a little bit, here is what I've figured out:

fn cannot_reborrow_already_borrowed(&self,
span: Span,
desc_new: &str,
msg_new: &str,
kind_new: &str,
old_span: Span,
noun_old: &str,
kind_old: &str,
msg_old: &str,
old_load_end_span: Option<Span>,
o: Origin)
-> DiagnosticBuilder
{
let mut err = struct_span_err!(self, span, E0502,
"cannot borrow `{}`{} as {} because {} is also borrowed as {}{}{OGN}",
desc_new, msg_new, kind_new, noun_old, kind_old, msg_old, OGN=o);
err.span_label(span, format!("{} borrow occurs here{}", kind_new, msg_new));
err.span_label(old_span, format!("{} borrow occurs here{}", kind_old, msg_old));
if let Some(old_load_end_span) = old_load_end_span {
err.span_label(old_load_end_span, format!("{} borrow ends here", kind_old));
}
self.cancel_if_wrong_origin(err, o)
}

The error is reported in the above function. That is called by the following function:

(BorrowKind::Shared, lft, _, BorrowKind::Mut, _, rgt) |
(BorrowKind::Mut, _, lft, BorrowKind::Shared, rgt, _) => self.tcx
.cannot_reborrow_already_borrowed(
span,
&desc_place,
"",
lft,
issued_span,
"it",
rgt,
"",
end_issued_loan_span,
Origin::Mir,
),

This is quite similar to the work done for #47607, in that PR, I added a set that contains the place/span of any errors reported so that they aren't reported again. In this case, the span on line 37 on the below error (that we want) would be in this set:

error[E0502]: cannot borrow `u.z.c` as immutable because it is also borrowed as mutable
  --> src/main.rs:37:20
   |
34 |         let mref = &mut u.s.a; //~ ERROR cannot assign twice to immutable variable `mref` [E0384]
   |                    ---------- mutable borrow occurs here
...
37 |         let nref = &u.z.c; //~ ERROR cannot assign twice to immutable variable `err` [E0384]
   |                    ^^^^^^ immutable borrow occurs here

I'm not entirely sure what the unintended side effects of the following might be, but we could check if the issued_span is in the set (in the above example, that is the error on line 34, but in the second unintended error, that would refer to the same location as above on line 37) and if it is, skip this error. It would essentially silence errors that overlap where the second borrow location of the first error is the first borrow location in subsequent errors. Thoughts?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@davidtwco do you think you could gist the output from -Zdump-mir=nll for this function?

Copy link
Member Author

@davidtwco davidtwco Jan 26, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yep but I was hoping for a gist :) kind of hard to digest inline...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

updated your comment =)

Copy link
Member Author

@davidtwco davidtwco Jan 26, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here is a gist with some logging added in access_place and check_access_for_conflict that should show the variable values. Lines 13730 to 13759 for the first error and lines 13912 to 13959 for the second error.

@kennytm kennytm added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 25, 2018
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Jan 31, 2018

Ping from triage @nikomatsakis!

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member

@nikomatsakis ping from triage!

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

So I did a bit of digging here, IIRC, and found that the strange errors arose from two-phase borrows. I did not however get far enough to decide if this was a distinct bug or what.

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member

@nikomatsakis and @rust-lang/compiler, can we get a review on this?

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

I was still hoping that @pnkfelix would weigh in. But I still hope to carve out some time to dig in to the two-phase borrow logic and try to understand just why it's triggering in the way that it is and how we can improve it.

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

@nikomatsakis oh, sorry, I didn't know you were still waiting on further input from me

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@pnkfelix so I think the problem was that whenever we saw a Gen bit for an activation, we treated that as an activation that needs checking. I think that should only be required for loans that are not already activated. I made that change in the most recent commit. Can you review it?

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

hmm, in gitter just now, @pnkfelix and I were saying we had some concern about the possibility of an activation being overlooked due to an activation from a previous loop

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

So it seems like what we need is some way to know when one activation is dominated by another (in which case it can be ignored). Because activations are "unioned" on control-flow join, we don't get that for free. Annoying. We could make a "must be activated" dataflow, but it feels like overkill to me.

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

That said, this seems orthogonal from the original PR. Why don't we do this -- I'll peel off my last two commits and we'll open up a separate issue to discuss the extra errors resulting from two-phase borrows. Then we can land this PR, which fixes a legit problem.

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 22, 2018

📌 Commit e6376a1 has been approved by nikomatsakis

@bors bors removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 22, 2018
@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Feb 22, 2018
@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

I opened #48418

Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2018
Fix borrow checker unsoundness with unions

Fixes rust-lang#45157. After discussion with @nikomatsakis on Gitter, this PR only adds a test since the original issue was resolved elsewhere.

r? @nikomatsakis
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2018
Rollup of 15 pull requests

- Successful merges: #47689, #48110, #48197, #48296, #48386, #48392, #48404, #48415, #48441, #48448, #48452, #48481, #48490, #48499, #48503
- Failed merges:
@bors bors merged commit e6376a1 into rust-lang:master Feb 25, 2018
@davidtwco davidtwco deleted the issue-45157 branch February 25, 2018 12:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Borrow checker unsoundness with unions
7 participants