Confusing safety contract of is_u8

[dtolnay]

BorshSerialize and BorshDeserialize have an is_u8 trait method which is unsafe to call (but safe to implement). What contract is the caller required to uphold when calling is_u8 in order for the call to be sound?

[dtolnay]

In other words the UB repros in #17 and #18 both continue to be an issue.

[evgenykuzyakov]

@dtolnay

What do you mean it's safe to implement? Does Rust allows to implement a trait method that is marked unsafe without unsafe?

Also if you have suggestion how to the handle it better, I'd prefer to do this. The issue is we want to implement Borsh serialization and deserialization of Vec<u8> and &[u8] differently from default implementation of Vec<T> and &[T] where T: BorshSerialize or T: BorshDeserialize

[dtolnay]

BorshSerialize and BorshDeserialize are safe traits -- by language semantics that means it is unsound for the memory safety / thread safety of the program to hinge on either of them being implemented "correctly". This is 100% orthogonal to whether an individual trait method is safe or unsafe to call (which is what unsafe fn means). A trait that is unsafe to implement can contain methods that are safe to call, and a trait that is safe to implement can contain methods that are unsafe to call.

Reference:

https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.50.0/reference/items/traits.html#unsafe-traits
https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.50.0/nomicon/safe-unsafe-meaning.html
https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.50.0/book/ch19-01-unsafe-rust.html
https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.50.0/std/keyword.unsafe.html

[matklad]

Yeah, that's all true. I believe there's no clean way to express this in Rust (what we ideally want is an unsafe super-trait, but that requires specialization, bringing us back to the square 1).

#25 implements a simpler solution of just hiding the method from crate's public API.

[RalfJung]

I believe there's no clean way to express this in Rust

unsafe trait sounds like a clean way to express "the user must be careful when implementing this trait (e.g., by not overwriting a certain method)".

[cramertj]

One pattern that can be used in order to have a safe trait rely on guarantees is the following:

struct Guarantee { _private: () }

impl Guarantee {
   // Safety: only call if ...
   pub unsafe fn promise() -> Self { Guarantee { _private: () } }
}

trait RequiresGuarantee {
   fn check_guarantee(&self) -> Guarantee;
}

Then users can call check_guarantee, which, if it returns without diverging, must have internally called promise using an unsafe block, so the requirements on promise must be satisfied.

[matklad]

To be clear, the underlying issue was solved way nicer by dtolnay here by just not using is_u8 at all.

@RalfJung there's a twist here, in that we want to (unsafely) override this for u8, and, for all other types, use default (safe) impl. Or, as I've said, we could use unsafe trait, but that needs specialization.

@cramertj that won't work exactly as spelled -- the user user can get Guarantee without unsafe by calling RequiresGuarantee::check_guarantee on some other type that implements it. You need to make check_guarantee unsafe to call as well:

// You write code like
struct CramertjType;

impl RequiresGuarantee for CramertjType {
    fn check_guarantee(&self) -> Guarantee { 
      // Carefully verify invariants
      unsafe { Guarantee::promise() } 
    } 
}

// I write code like
struct MatkladType;

impl RequiresGuarantee for MatkladType {
    fn check_guarantee(&self) -> Guarantee { 
      // Life's too short for verifying invariants, lets use someone else's promise
      CramertjType::check_guarantee()
    } 
}

[cramertj]

You're right, good point!

…

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 7:50 AM Aleksey Kladov ***@***.***> wrote: To be clear, the underlying issue was solved way nicer by dtolnay here by just not using is_u8 at all. @RalfJung <https://github.com/RalfJung> there's a twist here, in that we want to (unsafely) override this for u8, and, for all other types, use default (safe) impl. Or, as I've said, we *could* use unsafe trait, but that needs specialization. @cramertj <https://github.com/cramertj> that won't work exactly as spelled -- the user user can get Guarantee without unsafe by calling RequiresGuarantee::check_guarantee on some *other* type that implements it. You need to make check_guarantee unsafe to call as well: // You write code likestruct CramertjType; impl RequiresGuarantee for CramertjType { fn check_guarantee(&self) -> Guarantee { // Carefully verify invariants unsafe { Guarantee::promise() } } } // I write code likestruct MatkladType; impl RequiresGuarantee for MatkladType { fn check_guarantee(&self) -> Guarantee { // Life's too short for verifying invariants, lets use someone else's promise CramertjType::check_guarantee() } } — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#24 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNP2KPFXKTZC7T7VAK7F2TTJ3Q3XANCNFSM4ZNIANIQ> .

[RalfJung]

there's a twist here, in that we want to (unsafely) override this for u8, and, for all other types, use default (safe) impl. Or, as I've said, we could use unsafe trait, but that needs specialization.

You could use unsafe trait without specialization, but I guess that's not as ergonomic as you'd like it to be?