Re: [PATCH v2 09/12] rust: init: implement Zeroable for Opaque<T>

[Alice Ryhl <alice@ryhl.io>]

I suggested it because it seemed less fragile.

That said, after seeing what #[derive(Eq)] expands to, I'm not so sure. 
I'd probably investigate why the Eq macro has to expand to what it does.

On 7/29/23 06:11, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 25.07.23 13:57, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> writes:
>>> On 20.07.23 15:34, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>>>> Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> writes:
>>>>> Since `Opaque<T>` contains a `MaybeUninit<T>`, all bytes zero is a valid
>>>>> bit pattern for that type.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     ///
>>>>>     /// This is meant to be used with FFI objects that are never interpreted by Rust code.
>>>>>     #[repr(transparent)]
>>>>> +#[derive(Zeroable)]
>>>>>     pub struct Opaque<T> {
>>>>>         value: UnsafeCell<MaybeUninit<T>>,
>>>>>         _pin: PhantomPinned,
>>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> Does this actually work? I don't think we implement Zeroable for
>>>> UnsafeCell.
>>>
>>> Good catch, this does compile, but only because the current
>>> implementation of the derive expands to (modulo correct paths):
>>> ```
>>> impl<T> Zeroable for Opaque<T>
>>> where
>>>        UnsafeCell<MaybeUninit<T>>: Zeroable,
>>>        PhantomPinned: Zeroable,
>>> {}
>>> ```
>>> This implementation is of course useless, since `UnsafeCell` is never
>>> `Zeroable` at the moment. We could of course implement that and then this
>>> should work, but the question is if this is actually the desired output in
>>> general. I thought before that this would be a good idea, but I forgot that
>>> if the bounds are never satisfied it would silently compile.
>>>
>>> Do you think that we should have this expanded output instead?
>>> ```
>>> impl<T: Zeroable> Zeroable for Foo<T> {}
>>> const _: () = {
>>>        fn assert_zeroable<T: Zeroable>() {}
>>>        fn ensure_zeroable<T: Zeroable>() {
>>>            assert_zeroable::<Field1>();
>>>            assert_zeroable::<Field2>();
>>>        }
>>> };
>>> ```
>>> If the input was
>>> ```
>>> #[derive(Zeroable)]
>>> struct Foo<T> {
>>>        field1: Field1,
>>>        field2: Field2,
>>> }
>>> ```
>>
>> Yeah. The way that these macros usually expand is by adding `where T:
>> Zeroable` to the impl for each generic parameter, and failing
>> compilation if that is not enough to ensure that all of the fields are
>> `Zeroable`.
>>
>> You might want to consider this expansion instead:
>> ```
>> impl<T: Zeroable> Zeroable for Foo<T> {}
>> const _: () = {
>>        fn assert_zeroable<T: Zeroable>(arg: &T) {}
>>        fn ensure_zeroable<T: Zeroable>(arg: &Foo<T>) {
>>            assert_zeroable(&arg.field1);
>>            assert_zeroable(&arg.field2);
>>        }
>> };
>> ```
> 
> Is there a specific reason you think that I should us references here
> instead of the expansion from above (where I just use the types and
> not the fields themselves)?
>