add unsafe attributes RFC

Author: RalfJung

text/0000-unsafe-attributes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+- Feature Name: `unsafe_attributes`
+- Start Date: 2022-10-11
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Consider some attributes 'unsafe', so that they must only be used like this:
+
+```rust
+#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
+```
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Some of our attributes, such as `no_mangle`, can be used to
+[cause Undefined Behavior without any `unsafe` block](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28179).
+If this was regular code we would require them to be placed in an `unsafe {}`
+block, but since they are attributes that makes less sense. Hence we need a
+concept of 'unsafe attributes' and accompanying syntax to declare that one is
+aware of the UB risks here (and it might be good to add a SAFETY comment
+explaining why this use of the attribute is fine).
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+*Example explanation for `no_mangle`; the other attributes need something similar.*
+
+When declaring a function like this
+
+```rust
+#[no_mangle]
+pub fn write(...) { ... }
+```
+
+this will cause Rust to generate a globally visible function with the
+linker/export name `write`. As consequence of that, other code that wants to
+call the
+[C `write` function](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/write.2.html) might
+end up calling this other `write` instead. This can easily lead to Undefined
+Behavior:
+- The other `write` might have the wrong signature, so arguments are passed
+  incorrectly.
+- The other `write` might not have the expected behavior of
+  [write](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/write.2.html), causing code
+  relying on this behavior to misbehave.
+
+To avoid this, when declaring a function `no_mangle`, it is important that the
+name of the function does not clash with other globally named functions. Similar
+to how `unsafe { ... }` blocks are used to acknowledge that this code is
+dangerous and needs manual checking, `unsafe(no_mangle)` acknowledges that
+`no_mangle` is dangerous and needs to be manually checked for correctness:
+
+```rust
+// SAFETY: there is no other global function of this name
+#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
+pub fn my_own_write(...) { ... }
+```
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+Some attributes (e.g. `no_mangle`, `export_name`, `link_section` -- see
+[here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82499) for a more complete list)
+are considered "unsafe" attributes. An unsafe attribute must only be used inside
+`unsafe(...)` in the attribute declaration, like
+
+```rust
+#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
+```
+
+For backwards compatibility reasons, using these attributes outside of
+`unsafe(...)` is just a warning, not a hard error. Unsafe attributes that are
+added in the future can hard-require `unsafe` from the start since the backwards
+compatibility concern does not apply to them.
+
+Syntactically, for each unsafe attribute `attr`, we now also accept
+`unsafe(attr)` anywhere that `attr` can be used. `unsafe` cannot be nested,
+cannot contain `cfg_attr`, and cannot contain any other (non-unsafe) attributes.
+
+The `deny(unsafe_code)` lint denies the use of unsafe attributes both inside and
+outside of `unsafe(...)` blocks. (That lint currently has special handling to
+deny these attributes. Once there is a general notion of 'unsafe attributes' as
+proposed by this RFC, that special handling will no longer be needed.)
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+I think if we had thought of this around Rust 1.0, then this would be rather
+uncontroversial. As things stand now, this proposal will cause a lot of churn
+since all existing uses of these unsafe attributes need to be adjusted. The
+warning for using unsafe attributes outside `unsafe(...)` should probably have
+an auto-fix available to help ease the transition here.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+- **Nothing.** We could do nothing at all, and live with the status quo. However
+  then we will not be able to fix issues like
+  [`no_mangle` being unsound](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28179),
+  which is one of the oldest open soundness issues.
+- **Rename.** We could just rename the attributes to `unsafe_no_mangle` etc.
+  However that is inconsistent with how we approach `unsafe` on expressions, and
+  feels much less systematic and much more ad-hoc.
+- **`deny(unsafe_code)`.** We already
+  [started the process](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82499) of
+  rejecting these attributes when `deny(unsafe_code)` is used. We could say that
+  is enough. However the RFC authors thinks that is insufficient, since only few
+  crates use that lint, and since it is the wrong default for Rust (users have
+  to opt-in to a soundness-critical diagnostic -- that's totally against the
+  "safety by default" goal of Rust). This RFC says that yes, `deny(unsafe_code)`
+  should deny those attributes, but we should go further and require an explicit
+  `unsafe(...)` attribute block for them to be used at all.
+- **Item-level unsafe blocks.** We could find some way to have 'unsafe blocks'
+  around entire functions or modules. However, those would go against the usual
+  goal of keeping `unsafe` blocks small. Big `unsafe` blocks risk accidentally
+  calling an unsafe operation in there without even realizing it.
+- **Other syntax.** Obviously we could pick a different syntax for the same
+  concept, but this seems like the most natural marriage of the idea of unsafe
+  blocks from regular code, and the existing attributes syntax.
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+We have `unsafe` blocks; this is basically the same thing for the "attributes
+DSL".
+
+In the attribute DSL, we already have a "nesting" construct: `cfg_attr`. That
+allows terms like
+`#[cfg_attr(debug_assertions, deny(unsafe_code), allow(unused))]`, so there is
+precedent for having a list of attributes inside a single attribute.
+
+I don't know of other languages that would distinguish safe and unsafe
+attributes.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+- **Different lint staging.** The lint on using existing unsafe attributes like
+  `no_mangle` outside `unsafe(...)` could be staged in various ways: it could be
+  allow-by-default to start, it could be edition-dependent, it might eventually
+  be deny-by-default or even a hard error on some editions -- there are lots of
+  details here, which can be determined later during the process.
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+- **Unsafe attribute proc macros.** We could imagine something like
+    ```
+    #[proc_macro_attribute(require_unsafe)]
+    fn spoopy(args: TokenStream, input: TokenStream) -> TokenStream {…}
+    ```
+    to declare that an attribute proc macro is unsafe to use, and must only
+    occur as an unsafe macro. Such an unsafe-to-use attribute proc macro must
+    declare in a comment what its safety requirements are. (This is the `unsafe`
+    from `unsafe fn`, whereas the rest of the RFC is using the `unsafe` from
+    `unsafe { ... }`.)
+- **Unsafe derive.** We could use `#[unsafe(derive(Trait))]` to derive an
+  `unsafe impl` where the deriving macro itself cannot check all required safety
+  conditions.
+- **Unsafe tool attributes.** Same as above, but for tool attributes.
+- **Unsafe attributes on statements.** For now, the only unsafe attributes we
+  have don't make sense on the statement level. Once we do have unsafe statement
+  attributes, we need to figure out whether inside `unsafe {}` blocks one still
+  needs to also write `unsafe(...)`.
+- **Lists and nesting.** We could specify that `unsafe(...)` may contain a list
+  of arbitrary attributes (including safe ones), may be nested, and may contain
+  `cfg_attr` that gets expanded appropriately. However that could make it tricky
+  to consistently support non-builtin unsafe attributes in the future, so the
+  RFC proposes to not do that yet. The current approach is forward-compatible
+  with allowing lists and nesting in the future.