Skip to content

Miri engine: stronger type-based sanity check for assignments #70532

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 3, 2020
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
51 changes: 49 additions & 2 deletions src/librustc_mir/interpret/eval_context.rs
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ use rustc_middle::ty::query::TyCtxtAt;
use rustc_middle::ty::subst::SubstsRef;
use rustc_middle::ty::{self, Ty, TyCtxt, TypeFoldable};
use rustc_span::source_map::DUMMY_SP;
use rustc_target::abi::{Align, HasDataLayout, LayoutOf, Size, TargetDataLayout};
use rustc_target::abi::{Abi, Align, HasDataLayout, LayoutOf, Size, TargetDataLayout};

use super::{
Immediate, MPlaceTy, Machine, MemPlace, MemPlaceMeta, Memory, OpTy, Operand, Place, PlaceTy,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -210,6 +210,53 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> LayoutOf for InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
}
}

/// Test if it is valid for a MIR assignment to assign `src`-typed place to `dest`-typed value.
/// This test should be symmetric, as it is primarily about layout compatibility.
pub(super) fn mir_assign_valid_types<'tcx>(
src: TyAndLayout<'tcx>,
dest: TyAndLayout<'tcx>,
) -> bool {
if src.ty == dest.ty {
// Equal types, all is good.
return true;
}
// Type-changing assignments can happen for (at least) two reasons:
// - `&mut T` -> `&T` gets optimized from a reborrow to a mere assignment.
// - Subtyping is used. While all normal lifetimes are erased, higher-ranked lifetime
// bounds are still around and can lead to type differences.
// There is no good way to check the latter, so we compare layouts instead -- but only
// for values with `Scalar`/`ScalarPair` abi.
// FIXME: Do something more accurate, type-based.
match &src.abi {
Abi::Scalar(..) | Abi::ScalarPair(..) => src.layout == dest.layout,
_ => false,
}
}

/// Use the already known layout if given (but sanity check in debug mode),
/// or compute the layout.
#[cfg_attr(not(debug_assertions), inline(always))]
pub(super) fn from_known_layout<'tcx>(
known_layout: Option<TyAndLayout<'tcx>>,
compute: impl FnOnce() -> InterpResult<'tcx, TyAndLayout<'tcx>>,
) -> InterpResult<'tcx, TyAndLayout<'tcx>> {
match known_layout {
None => compute(),
Some(known_layout) => {
if cfg!(debug_assertions) {
let check_layout = compute()?;
assert!(
mir_assign_valid_types(check_layout, known_layout),
"expected type differs from actual type.\nexpected: {:?}\nactual: {:?}",
known_layout.ty,
check_layout.ty,
);
}
Ok(known_layout)
}
}
}

impl<'mir, 'tcx, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
pub fn new(
tcx: TyCtxtAt<'tcx>,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -377,7 +424,7 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
// have to support that case (mostly by skipping all caching).
match frame.locals.get(local).and_then(|state| state.layout.get()) {
None => {
let layout = crate::interpret::operand::from_known_layout(layout, || {
let layout = from_known_layout(layout, || {
let local_ty = frame.body.local_decls[local].ty;
let local_ty =
self.subst_from_frame_and_normalize_erasing_regions(frame, local_ty);
Expand Down
18 changes: 6 additions & 12 deletions src/librustc_mir/interpret/mod.rs
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,19 +18,13 @@ mod visitor;
pub use rustc_middle::mir::interpret::*; // have all the `interpret` symbols in one place: here

pub use self::eval_context::{Frame, InterpCx, LocalState, LocalValue, StackPopCleanup};

pub use self::place::{MPlaceTy, MemPlace, MemPlaceMeta, Place, PlaceTy};

pub use self::memory::{AllocCheck, FnVal, Memory, MemoryKind};

pub use self::intern::{intern_const_alloc_recursive, InternKind};
pub use self::machine::{AllocMap, Machine, MayLeak, StackPopJump};

pub use self::operand::{ImmTy, Immediate, OpTy, Operand, ScalarMaybeUndef};

pub use self::visitor::{MutValueVisitor, ValueVisitor};

pub use self::memory::{AllocCheck, FnVal, Memory, MemoryKind};
pub use self::operand::{ImmTy, Immediate, OpTy, Operand};
pub use self::place::{MPlaceTy, MemPlace, MemPlaceMeta, Place, PlaceTy};
pub use self::validity::RefTracking;

pub use self::intern::{intern_const_alloc_recursive, InternKind};
pub use self::visitor::{MutValueVisitor, ValueVisitor};

crate use self::intrinsics::eval_nullary_intrinsic;
use eval_context::{from_known_layout, mir_assign_valid_types};
35 changes: 6 additions & 29 deletions src/librustc_mir/interpret/operand.rs
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,21 +2,21 @@
//! All high-level functions to read from memory work on operands as sources.

use std::convert::TryFrom;
use std::fmt::Write;

use super::{InterpCx, MPlaceTy, Machine, MemPlace, Place, PlaceTy};
use rustc_hir::def::Namespace;
use rustc_macros::HashStable;
pub use rustc_middle::mir::interpret::ScalarMaybeUndef;
use rustc_middle::mir::interpret::{
sign_extend, truncate, AllocId, ConstValue, GlobalId, InterpResult, Pointer, Scalar,
};
use rustc_middle::ty::layout::{IntegerExt, PrimitiveExt, TyAndLayout};
use rustc_middle::ty::print::{FmtPrinter, PrettyPrinter, Printer};
use rustc_middle::ty::Ty;
use rustc_middle::{mir, ty};
use rustc_target::abi::{Abi, DiscriminantKind, HasDataLayout, Integer, LayoutOf, Size};
use rustc_target::abi::{VariantIdx, Variants};
use std::fmt::Write;

use super::{
from_known_layout, sign_extend, truncate, AllocId, ConstValue, GlobalId, InterpCx,
InterpResult, MPlaceTy, Machine, MemPlace, Place, PlaceTy, Pointer, Scalar, ScalarMaybeUndef,
};

/// An `Immediate` represents a single immediate self-contained Rust value.
///
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -203,29 +203,6 @@ impl<'tcx, Tag: Copy> ImmTy<'tcx, Tag> {
}
}

// Use the existing layout if given (but sanity check in debug mode),
// or compute the layout.
#[inline(always)]
pub(super) fn from_known_layout<'tcx>(
layout: Option<TyAndLayout<'tcx>>,
compute: impl FnOnce() -> InterpResult<'tcx, TyAndLayout<'tcx>>,
) -> InterpResult<'tcx, TyAndLayout<'tcx>> {
match layout {
None => compute(),
Some(layout) => {
if cfg!(debug_assertions) {
let layout2 = compute()?;
assert_eq!(
layout.layout, layout2.layout,
"mismatch in layout of supposedly equal-layout types {:?} and {:?}",
layout.ty, layout2.ty
);
}
Ok(layout)
}
}
}

impl<'mir, 'tcx, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
/// Normalice `place.ptr` to a `Pointer` if this is a place and not a ZST.
/// Can be helpful to avoid lots of `force_ptr` calls later, if this place is used a lot.
Expand Down
17 changes: 8 additions & 9 deletions src/librustc_mir/interpret/place.rs
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -7,16 +7,15 @@ use std::hash::Hash;

use rustc_macros::HashStable;
use rustc_middle::mir;
use rustc_middle::mir::interpret::truncate;
use rustc_middle::ty::layout::{PrimitiveExt, TyAndLayout};
use rustc_middle::ty::{self, Ty};
use rustc_target::abi::{Abi, Align, DiscriminantKind, FieldsShape};
use rustc_target::abi::{HasDataLayout, LayoutOf, Size, VariantIdx, Variants};

use super::{
AllocId, AllocMap, Allocation, AllocationExtra, ImmTy, Immediate, InterpCx, InterpResult,
LocalValue, Machine, MemoryKind, OpTy, Operand, Pointer, PointerArithmetic, RawConst, Scalar,
ScalarMaybeUndef,
mir_assign_valid_types, truncate, AllocId, AllocMap, Allocation, AllocationExtra, ImmTy,
Immediate, InterpCx, InterpResult, LocalValue, Machine, MemoryKind, OpTy, Operand, Pointer,
PointerArithmetic, RawConst, Scalar, ScalarMaybeUndef,
};

#[derive(Copy, Clone, Debug, Hash, PartialEq, Eq, HashStable)]
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -869,10 +868,10 @@ where
// We do NOT compare the types for equality, because well-typed code can
// actually "transmute" `&mut T` to `&T` in an assignment without a cast.
assert!(
src.layout.layout == dest.layout.layout,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are there remaining layout.layout in miri? Since that was what we were looking at.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's one:

layout.layout, layout2.layout,

That is verifying that the given layout matches the one we would have computed, so I think here comparing layouts for equality actually makes sense.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like that's all "destination layout" type stuff? i.e. where you might have a layout from knowing where a value might be written?
I think it should be better named/described as such, and should also use a type check.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it should be better named/described as such

I mean the function is called from_known_layout and documented as

// Use the existing layout if given (but sanity check in debug mode),
// or compute the layout.

That seems pretty clear?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and should also use a type check.

In fact I wonder why this does not just compare the types... let me try that (but it might have the same potential mismatches as assignments).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"existing layout" doesn't explain that it's a destination layout, whereas the one that might be computed or compared against is a source one.

If we end up doing subtyping checks, the direction matters.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think the callers here uniformly make one source and one destination.

The check we do here should be symmetric. And indeed the actual relation we care about is not subtyping, it is layout compatibility -- and that relation is symmetric. Subtyping is just an approximation of that (and it needs more properties, which makes it asymmetric).

I would find it highly suspicious if mir_assign_valid_types ended up being asymmetric.

"Layout mismatch when copying!\nsrc: {:#?}\ndest: {:#?}",
src,
dest
mir_assign_valid_types(src.layout, dest.layout),
"type mismatch when copying!\nsrc: {:?},\ndest: {:?}",
src.layout.ty,
dest.layout.ty,
);

// Let us see if the layout is simple so we take a shortcut, avoid force_allocation.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -923,7 +922,7 @@ where
src: OpTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>,
dest: PlaceTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>,
) -> InterpResult<'tcx> {
if src.layout.layout == dest.layout.layout {
if mir_assign_valid_types(src.layout, dest.layout) {
// Fast path: Just use normal `copy_op`
return self.copy_op(src, dest);
}
Expand Down