Merged
Conversation
rustbot
added
A-concurrency
Contributor
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #77917) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels: |
The comment said it's UB to call lock() while it is locked. That'd be quite a useless Mutex. :) It was supposed to say 'locked by the same thread', not just 'locked'.
StaticMutex is only ever used with as a static (as the name already suggests). So it doesn't have to be generic over a lifetime, but can simply assume 'static. This 'static lifetime guarantees the object is never moved, so this is no longer a manually checked requirement for unsafe calls to lock().
Member
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 44a2af3 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2020
…ex, r=dtolnay Static mutex is static StaticMutex is only ever used with as a static (as the name already suggests). So it doesn't have to be generic over a lifetime, but can simply assume 'static. This 'static lifetime guarantees the object is never moved, so this is no longer a manually checked requirement for unsafe calls to lock(). @rustbot modify labels: +T-libs +A-concurrency +C-cleanup
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2020
…ex, r=dtolnay Static mutex is static StaticMutex is only ever used with as a static (as the name already suggests). So it doesn't have to be generic over a lifetime, but can simply assume 'static. This 'static lifetime guarantees the object is never moved, so this is no longer a manually checked requirement for unsafe calls to lock(). @rustbot modify labels: +T-libs +A-concurrency +C-cleanup
This was referenced Oct 15, 2020
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 16, 2020
Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#75023 (ensure arguments are included in count mismatch span) - rust-lang#75265 (Add `str::{Split,RSplit,SplitN,RSplitN,SplitTerminator,RSplitTerminator,SplitInclusive}::as_str` methods) - rust-lang#75675 (mangling: mangle impl params w/ v0 scheme) - rust-lang#76084 (Refactor io/buffered.rs into submodules) - rust-lang#76119 (Stabilize move_ref_pattern) - rust-lang#77493 (ICEs should always print the top of the query stack) - rust-lang#77619 (Use futex-based thread-parker for Wasm32.) - rust-lang#77646 (For backtrace, use StaticMutex instead of a raw sys Mutex.) - rust-lang#77648 (Static mutex is static) - rust-lang#77657 (Cleanup cloudabi mutexes and condvars) - rust-lang#77672 (Simplify doc-cfg rendering based on the current context) - rust-lang#77780 (rustc_parse: fix spans on cast and range exprs with attrs) - rust-lang#77935 (BTreeMap: make PartialCmp/PartialEq explicit and tested) - rust-lang#77980 (Fix intra doc link for needs_drop) Failed merges: r? `@ghost`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2020
…=Mark-Simulacrum Enforce no-move rule of ReentrantMutex using Pin and fix UB in stdio A `sys_common::ReentrantMutex` may not be moved after initializing it with `.init()`. This was not enforced, but only stated as a requirement in the comments on the unsafe functions. This change enforces this no-moving rule using `Pin`, by changing `&self` to a `Pin` in the `init()` and `lock()` functions. This uncovered a bug I introduced in rust-lang#77154: stdio.rs (the only user of ReentrantMutex) called `init()` on its ReentrantMutexes while constructing them in the intializer of `SyncOnceCell::get_or_init`, which would move them afterwards. Interestingly, the ReentrantMutex unit tests already had the same bug, so this invalid usage has been tested on all (CI-tested) platforms for a long time. Apparently this doesn't break badly on any of the major platforms, but it does break the rules.\* To be able to keep using SyncOnceCell, this adds a `SyncOnceCell::get_or_init_pin` function, which makes it possible to work with pinned values inside a (pinned) SyncOnceCell. Whether this function should be public or not and what its exact behaviour and interface should be if it would be public is something I'd like to leave for a separate issue or PR. In this PR, this function is internal-only and marked with `pub(crate)`. \* Note: That bug is now included in 1.48, while this patch can only make it to ~~1.49~~ 1.50. We should consider the implications of 1.48 shipping with a wrong usage of `pthread_mutex_t` / `CRITICAL_SECTION` / .. which technically invokes UB according to their specification. The risk is very low, considering the objects are not 'used' (locked) before the move, and the ReentrantMutex unit tests have verified this works fine in practice. Edit: This has been backported and included in 1.48. And soon 1.49 too. --- In future changes, I want to push this usage of Pin further inside `sys` instead of only `sys_common`, and apply it to all 'unmovable' objects there (`Mutex`, `Condvar`, `RwLock`). Also, while `sys_common`'s mutexes and condvars are already taken care of by rust-lang#77147 and rust-lang#77648, its `RwLock` should still be made movable or get pinned.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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.
StaticMutex is only ever used with as a static (as the name already suggests). So it doesn't have to be generic over a lifetime, but can simply assume 'static.
This 'static lifetime guarantees the object is never moved, so this is no longer a manually checked requirement for unsafe calls to lock().
@rustbot modify labels: +T-libs +A-concurrency +C-cleanup