March 2024 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:117220] [Ruby master Feature#19057] Hide implementation of `rb_io_t`.
by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 23 Mar '24

23 Mar '24

Issue #19057 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Why don't you reconsider the "nested public interface" approach? From the reaction to this ticket, it is clear that forcing the "hide all the details" approach could destroy the Ruby ecosystem. And there is no need to force it because you have a more moderate alternative approach. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19057: Hide implementation of `rb_io_t`. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19057#change-107306 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Target version: 3.4 ---------------------------------------- In order to make improvements to the IO implementation like <https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18455>, we need to add new fields to `struct rb_io_t`. By the way, ending types in `_t` is not recommended by POSIX, so I'm also trying to rename the internal implementation to drop `_t` where possible during this conversion. Anyway, we should try to hide the implementation of `struct rb_io`. Ideally, we don't expose any of it, but the problem is backwards compatibility. So, in order to remain backwards compatibility, we should expose some fields of `struct rb_io`, the most commonly used one is `fd` and `mode`, but several others are commonly used. There are many fields which should not be exposed because they are implementation details. ## Current proposal The current proposed change <https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6511> creates two structs: ```c // include/ruby/io.h #ifndef RB_IO_T struct rb_io { int fd; // ... public fields ... }; #else struct rb_io; #endif // internal/io.h #define RB_IO_T struct rb_io { int fd; // ... public fields ... // ... private fields ... }; ``` However, we are not 100% confident this is safe according to the C specification. My experience is not sufficiently wide to say this is safe in practice, but it does look okay to both myself, and @Eregon + @tenderlovemaking have both given some kind of approval. That being said, maybe it's not safe. There are two alternatives: ## Hide all details We can make public `struct rb_io` completely invisible. ```c // include/ruby/io.h #define RB_IO_HIDDEN struct rb_io; int rb_ioptr_descriptor(struct rb_io *ioptr); // accessor for previously visible state. // internal/io.h struct rb_io { // ... all fields ... }; ``` This would only be forwards compatible, and code would need to feature detect like this: ```c #ifdef RB_IO_HIDDEN #define RB_IOPTR_DESCRIPTOR rb_ioptr_descriptor #else #define RB_IOPTR_DESCRIPTOR(ioptr) rb_ioptr_descriptor(ioptr) #endif ``` ## Nested public interface Alternatively, we can nest the public fields into the private struct: ```c // include/ruby/io.h struct rb_io_public { int fd; // ... public fields ... }; // internal/io.h #define RB_IO_T struct rb_io { struct rb_io_public public; // ... private fields ... }; ``` ## Considerations I personally think the "Hide all details" implementation is the best, but it's also the lest compatible. This is also what we are ultimately aiming for, whether we decide to take an intermediate "compatibility step" is up to us. I think "Nested public interface" is messy and introduces more complexity, but it might be slightly better defined than the "Current proposal" which might create undefined behaviour. That being said, all the tests are passing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:117291] [Ruby master Bug#20388] super + ruby2_keywords isn't working
by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) 22 Mar '24

22 Mar '24

Issue #20388 has been reported by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20388: super + ruby2_keywords isn't working https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20388 * Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) * Status: Open * Assignee: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ```ruby class A def process action, ... end end class B < A def process method_name, *args args.freeze super end ruby2_keywords(:process) end p B.new.process(:foo, bar: :baz) ``` The above code started breaking at revision 4f77d8d3 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 4

[ruby-core:117290] [Ruby master Feature#19057] Hide implementation of `rb_io_t`.
by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) 22 Mar '24

22 Mar '24

Issue #19057 has been updated by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun). > I don't see any other realistic option. I wish there was another way. FWIW, @byroot built a fork https://github.com/shopify/pitchfork, which has a reforking feature Unicorn doesn't have, and Shopify uses that for our largest application in production. > The reliance on these gems by a significant segment of our community increases the potential impact of any unresolved issues. I'd say it's unrealistic to expect all existing users to switch to something else before the Ruby 3.4 release. For example, Sprockets v3 is much more popular than v4 ([source](https://bestgems.org/gems/sprockets)) while it was released 6 years ago and is way past its EOL. Since that version depends on the legacy interface of ERB (which I maintain), the gem's legacy interface (deprecated 6 years ago) is very much stuck, like `rb_io_t`. But I'd rather not break existing Rails applications unless it's absolutely necessary. I don't think it's more important to hide implementation details than to keep existing applications running. Since the author himself [strongly discourages the use of Unicorn](https://yhbt.net/kgio-public/20230905092243.M939104@dcvr/), users should, however, _eventually_ stop using Unicorn. For those who are looking for Unicorn alternatives, you may use Pitchfork, or Puma with 1 thread per process (for Unicorn compatibility). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19057: Hide implementation of `rb_io_t`. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19057#change-107430 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Target version: 3.4 ---------------------------------------- In order to make improvements to the IO implementation like <https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18455>, we need to add new fields to `struct rb_io_t`. By the way, ending types in `_t` is not recommended by POSIX, so I'm also trying to rename the internal implementation to drop `_t` where possible during this conversion. Anyway, we should try to hide the implementation of `struct rb_io`. Ideally, we don't expose any of it, but the problem is backwards compatibility. So, in order to remain backwards compatibility, we should expose some fields of `struct rb_io`, the most commonly used one is `fd` and `mode`, but several others are commonly used. There are many fields which should not be exposed because they are implementation details. ## Current proposal The current proposed change <https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6511> creates two structs: ```c // include/ruby/io.h #ifndef RB_IO_T struct rb_io { int fd; // ... public fields ... }; #else struct rb_io; #endif // internal/io.h #define RB_IO_T struct rb_io { int fd; // ... public fields ... // ... private fields ... }; ``` However, we are not 100% confident this is safe according to the C specification. My experience is not sufficiently wide to say this is safe in practice, but it does look okay to both myself, and @Eregon + @tenderlovemaking have both given some kind of approval. That being said, maybe it's not safe. There are two alternatives: ## Hide all details We can make public `struct rb_io` completely invisible. ```c // include/ruby/io.h #define RB_IO_HIDDEN struct rb_io; int rb_ioptr_descriptor(struct rb_io *ioptr); // accessor for previously visible state. // internal/io.h struct rb_io { // ... all fields ... }; ``` This would only be forwards compatible, and code would need to feature detect like this: ```c #ifdef RB_IO_HIDDEN #define RB_IOPTR_DESCRIPTOR rb_ioptr_descriptor #else #define RB_IOPTR_DESCRIPTOR(ioptr) rb_ioptr_descriptor(ioptr) #endif ``` ## Nested public interface Alternatively, we can nest the public fields into the private struct: ```c // include/ruby/io.h struct rb_io_public { int fd; // ... public fields ... }; // internal/io.h #define RB_IO_T struct rb_io { struct rb_io_public public; // ... private fields ... }; ``` ## Considerations I personally think the "Hide all details" implementation is the best, but it's also the lest compatible. This is also what we are ultimately aiming for, whether we decide to take an intermediate "compatibility step" is up to us. I think "Nested public interface" is messy and introduces more complexity, but it might be slightly better defined than the "Current proposal" which might create undefined behaviour. That being said, all the tests are passing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:117289] [Ruby master Feature#19057] Hide implementation of `rb_io_t`.
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 22 Mar '24

22 Mar '24

Issue #19057 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). At @mame's request, I've reverted this change. The reversion itself was straightforward, yet it does not mitigate the underlying concerns that have come to light through this work. My attempt to enhance Ruby's `IO` implementation has highlighted a vulnerability within our ecosystem: the infrequency of updates and the ambiguity surrounding future releases from the maintainers of essential gems, such as `unicorn`. This predicament places the Ruby community in a precarious position, not just in terms of adopting improvements but more importantly, in our ability to respond to security vulnerabilities. The reliance on these gems by a significant segment of our community intensifies the potential impact of any unresolved issues. @mame if you truly believe a malfunctioning `unicorn` can "destroy the Ruby ecosystem", then I fear we have bigger problems that need to be discussed - it would only take a security issue or two to put us all companies that depend on `unicorn` in a very difficult position. Because I care about the future of Ruby, I made the decision to make a community fork of `unicorn` as I don't see any other realistic option. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19057: Hide implementation of `rb_io_t`. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19057#change-107429 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Target version: 3.4 ---------------------------------------- In order to make improvements to the IO implementation like <https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18455>, we need to add new fields to `struct rb_io_t`. By the way, ending types in `_t` is not recommended by POSIX, so I'm also trying to rename the internal implementation to drop `_t` where possible during this conversion. Anyway, we should try to hide the implementation of `struct rb_io`. Ideally, we don't expose any of it, but the problem is backwards compatibility. So, in order to remain backwards compatibility, we should expose some fields of `struct rb_io`, the most commonly used one is `fd` and `mode`, but several others are commonly used. There are many fields which should not be exposed because they are implementation details. ## Current proposal The current proposed change <https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6511> creates two structs: ```c // include/ruby/io.h #ifndef RB_IO_T struct rb_io { int fd; // ... public fields ... }; #else struct rb_io; #endif // internal/io.h #define RB_IO_T struct rb_io { int fd; // ... public fields ... // ... private fields ... }; ``` However, we are not 100% confident this is safe according to the C specification. My experience is not sufficiently wide to say this is safe in practice, but it does look okay to both myself, and @Eregon + @tenderlovemaking have both given some kind of approval. That being said, maybe it's not safe. There are two alternatives: ## Hide all details We can make public `struct rb_io` completely invisible. ```c // include/ruby/io.h #define RB_IO_HIDDEN struct rb_io; int rb_ioptr_descriptor(struct rb_io *ioptr); // accessor for previously visible state. // internal/io.h struct rb_io { // ... all fields ... }; ``` This would only be forwards compatible, and code would need to feature detect like this: ```c #ifdef RB_IO_HIDDEN #define RB_IOPTR_DESCRIPTOR rb_ioptr_descriptor #else #define RB_IOPTR_DESCRIPTOR(ioptr) rb_ioptr_descriptor(ioptr) #endif ``` ## Nested public interface Alternatively, we can nest the public fields into the private struct: ```c // include/ruby/io.h struct rb_io_public { int fd; // ... public fields ... }; // internal/io.h #define RB_IO_T struct rb_io { struct rb_io_public public; // ... private fields ... }; ``` ## Considerations I personally think the "Hide all details" implementation is the best, but it's also the lest compatible. This is also what we are ultimately aiming for, whether we decide to take an intermediate "compatibility step" is up to us. I think "Nested public interface" is messy and introduces more complexity, but it might be slightly better defined than the "Current proposal" which might create undefined behaviour. That being said, all the tests are passing. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:116819] [Ruby master Feature#20275] Avoid extra backtrace entries for rescue and ensure
by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 21 Mar '24

21 Mar '24

Issue #20275 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20275: Avoid extra backtrace entries for rescue and ensure https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20275 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- From https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#note-48: ```ruby def raise_nested_exceptions raise "First error" rescue begin raise "Second error" rescue raise "Third error" end end raise_nested_exceptions ``` Current: ``` -:7:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions': Third error (RuntimeError) from -:4:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions' from -:1:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions' from -:11:in '<main>' -:5:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions': Second error (RuntimeError) from -:1:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions' from -:11:in '<main>' -:2:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions': First error (RuntimeError) from -:11:in '<main>' ``` The above repeated backtrace entries for `Object#raise_nested_exceptions` are because of CRuby implementation details. It seems best to hide them because they do not help understanding the program, and semantically there is no (method or proc) call on line 1 or 4. Proposed: ``` -:7:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions': Third error (RuntimeError) from -:11:in '<main>' -:5:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions': Second error (RuntimeError) from -:11:in '<main>' -:2:in 'Object#raise_nested_exceptions': First error (RuntimeError) from -:11:in '<main>' ``` We can see TruffleRuby already behave this way, most likely because they do not use an extra frame for `rescue`. It is definitely useful to have the same backtrace on different Ruby implementations as lots of tests rely on this. TruffleRuby 23.1.2: ``` -:7:in `raise_nested_exceptions': Third error (RuntimeError) from -:11:in `<main>' -:5:in `raise_nested_exceptions': Second error (RuntimeError) from -:11:in `<main>' -:2:in `raise_nested_exceptions': First error (RuntimeError) from -:11:in `<main>' ``` JRuby 9.4.5.0: ``` RuntimeError: Third error raise_nested_exceptions at -:7 <main> at -:11 RuntimeError: Second error raise_nested_exceptions at -:5 <main> at -:11 RuntimeError: First error raise_nested_exceptions at -:2 <main> at -:11 ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 7

[ruby-core:117286] [Ruby master Feature#19117] Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name
by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 21 Mar '24

21 Mar '24

Issue #19117 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Assignee changed from Eregon (Benoit Daloze) to mame (Yusuke Endoh) ---------------------------------------- Feature #19117: Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#change-107412 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Closed * Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * Target version: 3.4 ---------------------------------------- ``` module Foo class Bar def inspect 1 + '1' end end end p Foo::Bar.new ``` This code produce the following backtrace: ``` /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError) from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `inspect' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `p' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>' ``` This works, but on large codebases and large backtraces the method name isn't always all that revealing, most of the time you need to open many of the locations listed in the backtrace to really understand what is going on. I propose that we also include the owner name: ``` /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Integer#+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError) from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Foo::Bar#inspect' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `Kernel#p' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>' ``` I believe that in many case it would allow to much better understand the backtrace without having to jump back and forth between it and the source code. This is inspired by @ivoanjo 's `backtracie` gem: https://github.com/ivoanjo/backtracie -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:117285] [Ruby master Feature#19117] Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name
by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 21 Mar '24

21 Mar '24

Issue #19117 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Assignee set to Eregon (Benoit Daloze) PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10325 ---------------------------------------- Feature #19117: Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#change-107411 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Closed * Assignee: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Target version: 3.4 ---------------------------------------- ``` module Foo class Bar def inspect 1 + '1' end end end p Foo::Bar.new ``` This code produce the following backtrace: ``` /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError) from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `inspect' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `p' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>' ``` This works, but on large codebases and large backtraces the method name isn't always all that revealing, most of the time you need to open many of the locations listed in the backtrace to really understand what is going on. I propose that we also include the owner name: ``` /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Integer#+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError) from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Foo::Bar#inspect' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `Kernel#p' from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>' ``` I believe that in many case it would allow to much better understand the backtrace without having to jump back and forth between it and the source code. This is inspired by @ivoanjo 's `backtracie` gem: https://github.com/ivoanjo/backtracie -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:117169] [Ruby master Bug#20338] calling new has regressed allocations over past few ruby releases
by fablestales (Fable Tales) 21 Mar '24

21 Mar '24

Issue #20338 has been reported by fablestales (Fable Tales). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20338: calling new has regressed allocations over past few ruby releases https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20338 * Author: fablestales (Fable Tales) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Given this script: ``` class Foo def initialize(**kwargs) end end class Bar def initialize(y:) end end b = GC.stat[:total_allocated_objects] 1000.times { Foo.new(y:1) } p GC.stat[:total_allocated_objects]-b b = GC.stat[:total_allocated_objects] 1000.times { Bar.new(y:1) } p GC.stat[:total_allocated_objects]-b ``` On Ruby 3.2 it prints ``` (fable-3_3_dead_with_patches) $ ruby --version ruby 3.2.3 (2024-01-18 revision 52bb2ac0a6) [arm64-darwin23] (fable-3_3_dead_with_patches) $ ruby hi.rb 3006 2005 ``` On Ruby 3.3 it prints: ``` ((HEAD detached at v3_3_0)) $ ./ruby --version ruby 3.3.0 (2023-12-25 revision 5124f9ac75) [arm64-darwin23] ((HEAD detached at v3_3_0)) $ ./ruby hi.rb 3008 3005 ``` On master: ``` (master) $ git rev-parse HEAD 83618f2cfa004accdd1514de7dcbba291aa7e831 (master) $ ./ruby --version ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-03-14T12:33:30Z master 83618f2cfa) [arm64-darwin23] (master) $ ./ruby hi.rb 3006 4005 ``` so that is: since Ruby 3.2 `.new`ing an object with static keyword args has grown from 2 allocations per object to 4 allocations per object. I have a pull request which introduces a new instruction to the VM `opt_new` which basically inlines calling allocate and initialize directly, avoiding a lot of what is causing these extra objects to be allocated. My PR is here: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10254. With my patch the script prints 2006 and 1005 respectively. This is the smallest number of objects that _can_ be allocated for such calls. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 3

[ruby-core:117281] [Ruby master Bug#20386] Backport CVE-2024-27281
by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 21 Mar '24

21 Mar '24

Issue #20386 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20386: Backport CVE-2024-27281 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20386 * Author: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) * Status: Closed * Backport: 3.0: REQUIRED, 3.1: REQUIRED, 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- I disclosed https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2024/03/21/rce-rdoc-cve-2024-27281/ today. We should backport fixed RDoc to all stable version. * For 3.0: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10319 * For 3.1: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10318 * For 3.2: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10317 * For 3.3: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10316 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:117280] [Ruby master Bug#20385] Backport CVE-2024-27280
by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 21 Mar '24

21 Mar '24

Issue #20385 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20385: Backport CVE-2024-27280 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20385 * Author: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) * Status: Closed * Backport: 3.0: REQUIRED, 3.1: REQUIRED, 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: DONTNEED ---------------------------------------- I disclosed https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2024/03/21/buffer-overread-cve-2024-27280/ today. This StringIO versions should be backported in the next release. * For Ruby 3.0: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10320 * For Ruby 3.1: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10321 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0