-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
RPITITs may imply unsound outlives for late-bound args in signature #133427
Comments
While it may seem from bisection that this is due to: It's actually only uncovered by that PR because it flipped the order that we listed opaque lifetimes (which changes what regions we end up remapping in the |
Actually, here's an unsoundness that is on stable. trait MkStatic {
fn mk_static(self) -> &'static str;
}
impl MkStatic for &'static str {
fn mk_static(self) -> &'static str { self }
}
trait Foo {
fn foo<'a: 'static, 'late>(&'late self) -> impl MkStatic;
}
impl Foo for str {
fn foo<'a: 'static>(&'a self) -> impl MkStatic + 'static {
self
}
}
fn call_foo<T: Foo + ?Sized>(t: &T) -> &'static str {
t.foo().mk_static()
}
fn main() {
let s = call_foo(String::from("hello, world").as_str());
println!("> {s}");
} |
WG-prioritization assigning priority (Zulip discussion). @rustbot label -I-prioritize +P-high |
Rollup merge of rust-lang#133428 - compiler-errors:rpitit-unsound, r=lcnr Actually use placeholder regions for trait method late bound regions in `collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys` So in rust-lang#113182, I introduced a "diagnostics improvement" in the form of 473c88d, which changes which signature we end up instantiating with placeholder regions and which signature we end up instantiating with fresh region vars so that we have placeholders corresponding to the names of the late-bound regions coming from the *impl*. However, this is not sound, since now we're essentially no longer proving that *all* instantiations of the trait method are compatible with an instantiation of the impl method, but vice versa (which is weaker). Let's look at the example `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/do-not-imply-from-trait-impl.rs`: ```rust trait MkStatic { fn mk_static(self) -> &'static str; } impl MkStatic for &'static str { fn mk_static(self) -> &'static str { self } } trait Foo { fn foo<'a: 'static, 'late>(&'late self) -> impl MkStatic; } impl Foo for str { fn foo<'a: 'static>(&'a self) -> impl MkStatic + 'static { self } } fn call_foo<T: Foo + ?Sized>(t: &T) -> &'static str { t.foo().mk_static() } fn main() { let s = call_foo(String::from("hello, world").as_str()); println!("> {s}"); } ``` To collect RPITITs, we were previously instantiating the trait signature with infer vars (`fn(&'?0 str) -> ?1t` where `?1t` is the variable we use to infer the RPITIT) and the impl signature with placeholders (there are no late-bound regions in that signature, so we just have `fn(&'a str) -> Opaque`). Equating the signatures works, since all we do is unify `?1t` with `Opaque` and `'?0` with `'a`. However, conceptually it *shouldn't* hold, since this definition is not valid for *all* instantiations of the trait method but just the one where `'0` (i.e. `'late`) is equal to `'a` :( ## So what This PR effectively reverts 473c88d to fix the unsoundness. Fixes rust-lang#133427 Also fixes rust-lang#133425, which is actually coincidentally another instance of this bug (but not one that is weaponized into UB, just one that causes an ICE in refinement checking).
I tried this code:
I expected to see this happen: Compilation failure.
Instead, this happened: Segfault due to UAF
Why?
See comment below.
Meta
rustc --version --verbose
:Not present on beta or stable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: