Skip to content

const-eval: allow constants to refer to mutable/external memory, but reject such constants as patterns #140942

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 3 commits into from
Jun 27, 2025

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

@RalfJung RalfJung commented May 12, 2025

This fixes #140653 by accepting code such as this:

static FOO: AtomicU32 = AtomicU32::new(0);
const C: &'static AtomicU32 = &FOO;

This can be written entirely in safe code, so there can't really be anything wrong with it.

We also accept the much more questionable following code, since it looks very similar to the interpreter:

static mut FOO2: u32 = 0;
const C2: &'static u32 = unsafe { &mut FOO2 };

Using this without causing UB is at least very hard (the details are unclear since it is related to how the aliasing model deals with the staging of const-eval vs runtime code).

If a constant like C2 is used as a pattern, we emit an error:

error: constant BAD_PATTERN cannot be used as pattern
  --> $DIR/const_refs_to_static_fail.rs:30:9
   |
LL |         BAD_PATTERN => {},
   |         ^^^^^^^^^^^
   |
   = note: constants that reference mutable or external memory cannot be used as pattern

(If you somehow manage to build a pattern with constant C, you'd get the same error, but that should be impossible: we don't have a type that can be used in patterns and that has interior mutability.)

The same treatment is afforded for shared references to extern static, for the same reason: the const evaluation is entirely fine with it, we just can't build a pattern for it -- and when using interior mutability, this can be totally sound.

We do still not accept anything where there is an &mut in the final value of the const, as that should always require unsafe code and it's hard to imagine a sound use-case that would require this.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 12, 2025

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 12, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 12, 2025

Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery

cc @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri, @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri

@RalfJung RalfJung added T-lang Relevant to the language team S-waiting-on-team Status: Awaiting decision from the relevant subteam (see the T-<team> label). I-lang-nominated Nominated for discussion during a lang team meeting. labels May 12, 2025
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

@rust-lang/lang nominating for FCP following prior discussion in #140653.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the const-ref-to-mut branch from f619969 to 9767f96 Compare May 12, 2025 12:13
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the const-ref-to-mut branch from 9767f96 to 160cee0 Compare May 12, 2025 12:37
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 12, 2025

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the const-ref-to-mut branch from 160cee0 to e316943 Compare May 12, 2025 12:41
@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the const-ref-to-mut branch from e316943 to 6722d4d Compare May 12, 2025 13:01
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

r? @oli-obk (or someone way more familiar with const-eval)

@rustbot rustbot assigned oli-obk and unassigned jieyouxu May 12, 2025
@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the const-ref-to-mut branch 2 times, most recently from 57ea31d to 6e9a7f4 Compare May 12, 2025 16:46
@traviscross traviscross removed the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label May 13, 2025
@traviscross
Copy link
Contributor

traviscross commented May 13, 2025

As discussed in #140653 (comment), this sounds right to me, and I propose that we do it.

@rfcbot fcp merge

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented May 13, 2025

Team member @traviscross has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

Concerns:

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. labels May 13, 2025
@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 21, 2025
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

This should probably still wait for rust-lang/reference#1865 ?
@bors r-

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jun 21, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 25, 2025

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #142997) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@traviscross traviscross removed the S-waiting-on-documentation Status: Waiting on approved PRs to documentation before merging label Jun 26, 2025
@traviscross
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for holding this for the documentation updates to the Reference. That's now ready, so we can...

@bors r=oli-obk

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 26, 2025

📌 Commit 3f818e4 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jun 26, 2025
@traviscross
Copy link
Contributor

...but it has conflicts...

@bors r-

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jun 26, 2025
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah, I was waiting for the reference PR to finish so I don't have to rebase N times.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=oli-obk

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 26, 2025

📌 Commit bade3fd has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jun 26, 2025
@apiraino apiraino removed the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Jun 26, 2025
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2025
…rors

Rollup of 18 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #137843 (make RefCell unstably const)
 - #140942 (const-eval: allow constants to refer to mutable/external memory, but reject such constants as patterns)
 - #142549 (small iter.intersperse.fold() optimization)
 - #142637 (Remove some glob imports from the type system)
 - #142647 ([perf] Compute hard errors without diagnostics in impl_intersection_has_impossible_obligation)
 - #142700 (Remove incorrect comments in `Weak`)
 - #142927 (Add note to `find_const_ty_from_env`)
 - #142967 (Fix RwLock::try_write documentation for WouldBlock condition)
 - #142986 (Port `#[export_name]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure)
 - #143001 (Rename run always )
 - #143010 (Update `browser-ui-test` version to `0.20.7`)
 - #143015 (Add `sym::macro_pin` diagnostic item for `core::pin::pin!()`)
 - #143033 (Expand const-stabilized API links in relnotes)
 - #143041 (Remove cache for citool)
 - #143056 (Move an ACE test out of the GCI directory)
 - #143059 (Fix 1.88 relnotes)
 - #143067 (Tracking issue number for `iter_macro`)
 - #143073 (Fix some fixmes that were waiting for let chains)

Failed merges:

 - #143020 (codegen_fn_attrs: make comment more precise)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 36cde67 into rust-lang:master Jun 27, 2025
10 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.90.0 milestone Jun 27, 2025
rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2025
Rollup merge of #140942 - RalfJung:const-ref-to-mut, r=oli-obk

const-eval: allow constants to refer to mutable/external memory, but reject such constants as patterns

This fixes #140653 by accepting code such as this:
```rust
static FOO: AtomicU32 = AtomicU32::new(0);
const C: &'static AtomicU32 = &FOO;
```
This can be written entirely in safe code, so there can't really be anything wrong with it.

We also accept the much more questionable following code, since it looks very similar to the interpreter:
```rust
static mut FOO2: u32 = 0;
const C2: &'static u32 = unsafe { &mut FOO2 };
```
Using this without causing UB is at least very hard (the details are unclear since it is related to how the aliasing model deals with the staging of const-eval vs runtime code).

If a constant like `C2` is used as a pattern, we emit an error:
```
error: constant BAD_PATTERN cannot be used as pattern
  --> $DIR/const_refs_to_static_fail.rs:30:9
   |
LL |         BAD_PATTERN => {},
   |         ^^^^^^^^^^^
   |
   = note: constants that reference mutable or external memory cannot be used as pattern
```
(If you somehow manage to build a pattern with constant `C`, you'd get the same error, but that should be impossible: we don't have a type that can be used in patterns and that has interior mutability.)

The same treatment is afforded for shared references to `extern static`, for the same reason: the const evaluation is entirely fine with it, we just can't build a pattern for it -- and when using interior mutability, this can be totally sound.

We do still not accept anything where there is an `&mut` in the final value of the const, as that should always require unsafe code and it's hard to imagine a sound use-case that would require this.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-lang Relevant to the language team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Confusing error when a const contains a shared ref to interior mutable data