CFI: Support function pointers for trait methods
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for function pointers to trait methods by attaching both concrete and abstract types to functions.
KCFI does this through generation of a `ReifyShim` on any function pointer for a method that could go into a vtable, and keeping this separate from `ReifyShim`s that are *intended* for vtable us by setting a `ReifyReason` on them.
CFI does this by setting both the concrete and abstract type on every instance.
This should land after #123024 or a similar PR, as it diverges the implementation of CFI vs KCFI.
r? `@compiler-errors`
KCFI needs to be able to tell which kind of `ReifyShim` it is examining
in order to decide whether to use a concrete type (`FnPtr` case) or an
abstract case (`Vtable` case). You can *almost* tell this from context,
but there is one case where you can't - if a trait has a method which is
*not* `#[track_caller]`, with an impl that *is* `#[track_caller]`, both
the vtable and a function pointer created from that method will be
`ReifyShim(def_id)`.
Currently, the reason is optional to ensure no additional unique
`ReifyShim`s are added without KCFI on. However, the case in which an
extra `ReifyShim` is created is sufficiently rare that this may be worth
revisiting to reduce complexity.
recursively evaluate the constants in everything that is 'mentioned'
This is another attempt at fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107503. The previous attempt at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112879 seems stuck in figuring out where the [perf regression](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=c55d1ee8d4e3162187214692229a63c2cc5e0f31&end=ec8de1ebe0d698b109beeaaac83e60f4ef8bb7d1&stat=instructions:u) comes from. In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122258 I learned some things, which informed the approach this PR is taking.
Quoting from the new collector docs, which explain the high-level idea:
```rust
//! One important role of collection is to evaluate all constants that are used by all the items
//! which are being collected. Codegen can then rely on only encountering constants that evaluate
//! successfully, and if a constant fails to evaluate, the collector has much better context to be
//! able to show where this constant comes up.
//!
//! However, the exact set of "used" items (collected as described above), and therefore the exact
//! set of used constants, can depend on optimizations. Optimizing away dead code may optimize away
//! a function call that uses a failing constant, so an unoptimized build may fail where an
//! optimized build succeeds. This is undesirable.
//!
//! To fix this, the collector has the concept of "mentioned" items. Some time during the MIR
//! pipeline, before any optimization-level-dependent optimizations, we compute a list of all items
//! that syntactically appear in the code. These are considered "mentioned", and even if they are in
//! dead code and get optimized away (which makes them no longer "used"), they are still
//! "mentioned". For every used item, the collector ensures that all mentioned items, recursively,
//! do not use a failing constant. This is reflected via the [`CollectionMode`], which determines
//! whether we are visiting a used item or merely a mentioned item.
//!
//! The collector and "mentioned items" gathering (which lives in `rustc_mir_transform::mentioned_items`)
//! need to stay in sync in the following sense:
//!
//! - For every item that the collector gather that could eventually lead to build failure (most
//! likely due to containing a constant that fails to evaluate), a corresponding mentioned item
//! must be added. This should use the exact same strategy as the ecollector to make sure they are
//! in sync. However, while the collector works on monomorphized types, mentioned items are
//! collected on generic MIR -- so any time the collector checks for a particular type (such as
//! `ty::FnDef`), we have to just onconditionally add this as a mentioned item.
//! - In `visit_mentioned_item`, we then do with that mentioned item exactly what the collector
//! would have done during regular MIR visiting. Basically you can think of the collector having
//! two stages, a pre-monomorphization stage and a post-monomorphization stage (usually quite
//! literally separated by a call to `self.monomorphize`); the pre-monomorphizationn stage is
//! duplicated in mentioned items gathering and the post-monomorphization stage is duplicated in
//! `visit_mentioned_item`.
//! - Finally, as a performance optimization, the collector should fill `used_mentioned_item` during
//! its MIR traversal with exactly what mentioned item gathering would have added in the same
//! situation. This detects mentioned items that have *not* been optimized away and hence don't
//! need a dedicated traversal.
enum CollectionMode {
/// Collect items that are used, i.e., actually needed for codegen.
///
/// Which items are used can depend on optimization levels, as MIR optimizations can remove
/// uses.
UsedItems,
/// Collect items that are mentioned. The goal of this mode is that it is independent of
/// optimizations: the set of "mentioned" items is computed before optimizations are run.
///
/// The exact contents of this set are *not* a stable guarantee. (For instance, it is currently
/// computed after drop-elaboration. If we ever do some optimizations even in debug builds, we
/// might decide to run them before computing mentioned items.) The key property of this set is
/// that it is optimization-independent.
MentionedItems,
}
```
And the `mentioned_items` MIR body field docs:
```rust
/// Further items that were mentioned in this function and hence *may* become monomorphized,
/// depending on optimizations. We use this to avoid optimization-dependent compile errors: the
/// collector recursively traverses all "mentioned" items and evaluates all their
/// `required_consts`.
///
/// This is *not* soundness-critical and the contents of this list are *not* a stable guarantee.
/// All that's relevant is that this set is optimization-level-independent, and that it includes
/// everything that the collector would consider "used". (For example, we currently compute this
/// set after drop elaboration, so some drop calls that can never be reached are not considered
/// "mentioned".) See the documentation of `CollectionMode` in
/// `compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs` for more context.
pub mentioned_items: Vec<Spanned<MentionedItem<'tcx>>>,
```
Fixes#107503
Validation introduced in #113124 allows UnwindAction::Continue and
TerminatorKind::Resume to occur only in functions with ABI that can
unwind. The function ABI depends on the panic strategy, which can vary
across crates.
Usually MIR is built and validated in the same crate. The coroutine drop
glue thus far was an exception. As a result validation could fail when
mixing different panic strategies.
Avoid the problem by executing AbortUnwindingCalls along with the
validation.
Don't do intra-pass validation on MIR shims
Fixes#114375
In the test that was committed, we end up generating the drop shim for `struct Foo` that looks like:
```
fn std::ptr::drop_in_place(_1: *mut Foo) -> () {
let mut _0: ();
bb0: {
goto -> bb5;
}
bb1: {
return;
}
bb2 (cleanup): {
resume;
}
bb3: {
goto -> bb1;
}
bb4 (cleanup): {
drop(((*_1).0: foo::WrapperWithDrop<()>)) -> [return: bb2, unwind terminate];
}
bb5: {
drop(((*_1).0: foo::WrapperWithDrop<()>)) -> [return: bb3, unwind: bb2];
}
}
```
In `bb4` and `bb5`, we assert that `(*_1).0` has type `WrapperWithDrop<()>`. However, In a user-facing param env, the type is actually `WrapperWithDrop<Tait>`. These types are not equal in a user-facing param-env (and can't be made equal even if we use `DefiningAnchor::Bubble`, since it's a non-local TAIT).
mir opt + codegen: handle subtyping
fixes#107205
the same issue was caused in multiple places:
- mir opts: both copy and destination propagation
- codegen: assigning operands to locals (which also propagates values)
I changed codegen to always update the type in the operands used for locals which should guard against any new occurrences of this bug going forward. I don't know how to make mir optimizations more resilient here. Hopefully the added tests will be enough to detect any trivially wrong optimizations going forward.
