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

[ruby-core:117046] [Ruby master Bug#20323] Segmentation Fault in while working in Ruby 2.6.3
by sriram-ruby-dev (Sriram A) 04 Mar '24

04 Mar '24

チケット #20323 を sriram-ruby-dev (Sriram A) さんが作成しました。 ---------------------------------------- Bug #20323: Segmentation Fault in while working in Ruby 2.6.3 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20323 * 作成者: sriram-ruby-dev (Sriram A) * ステータス: Open * ruby -v: 2.6.3 * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I am using Ruby 2.6.3 in my project. Suddenly my application raises segmentation fault issue, I have tried the solution mentioned in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18555#note-6 the above issue, but it doesn't solve my problem. I have attached log of the error. ``` ruby 2023-08-09 12:44:32 /usr/local/lib/ruby/2.6.0/openssl/buffering.rb:383: [BUG] Illegal instruction at 0x0000ffff90d911a0 2023-08-09 12:44:32 ruby 2.6.3p62 (2019-04-16 revision 67580) [aarch64-linux] 2023-08-09 12:44:32 2023-08-09 12:44:32 -- Control frame information ----------------------------------------------- 2023-08-09 12:44:32 c:0046 p:---- s:0274 e:000273 CFUNC :syswrite_nonblock 2023-08-09 12:44:32 c:0045 p:0013 s:0268 e:000267 METHOD /usr/local/lib/ruby/2.6.0/openssl/buffering.rb:383 2023-08-09 12:44:32 c:0044 p:0021 s:0261 e:000260 BLOCK /usr/local/lib/ruby/2.6.0/net/protocol.rb:277 [FINISH] 2023-08-09 12:44:32 c:0043 p:---- s:0253 e:000252 IFUNC 2023-08-09 12:44:32 c:0042 p:---- s:0250 e:000249 CFUNC :each 2023-08-09 12:44:32 c:0041 p:---- s:0247 e:000246 CFUNC :each_with_index ``` ---ファイル--------------------------------- output.log (509 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:117018] [Ruby master Feature#20317] Removing the `allocate` method should cause `new` to fail
by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) 04 Mar '24

04 Mar '24

Issue #20317 has been reported by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20317: Removing the `allocate` method should cause `new` to fail https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20317 * Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- When you remove the `allocate` method from a class the you can't allocate the class via the `allocate` method. However, you _can_ allocate the class via the `new` method: ```ruby class Foo; end Foo.singleton_class.undef_method(:allocate) begin Foo.allocate # doesn't work, of course rescue NoMethodError end begin Class.instance_method(:allocate).bind_call(Foo) # also doesn't work rescue TypeError end Foo.new # works? ``` I think that when we remove the `allocate` method, the `new` method should also fail as there is no `allocate` method for `new` to call. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 3

[ruby-core:116542] [Ruby master Misc#20232] Document Kernel#require and Module#autoload concurrency guarantees
by fxn (Xavier Noria) 04 Mar '24

04 Mar '24

Issue #20232 has been reported by fxn (Xavier Noria). ---------------------------------------- Misc #20232: Document Kernel#require and Module#autoload concurrency guarantees https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20232 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I'd like to document `Kernel#require` and `Module#autoload` concurrency guarantees. In the case of multiple threads loading the same file concurrently, `Kernel#require` will succeed in just one of them and the rest will wait and return false. If a constant that has an autoload is concurrently referenced, the same can be said. Assuming no errors, only one thread will succeed, and the rest wait. There will be no context switching in the middle of an autoload that will result in a `NameError` in other threads waiting for that constant. Now, I'd like to have a discussion about those guarantees with fibers. In the case of manually managed fibers, users can enter a deadlock by hand: ```ruby # This produces a deadlock. File.write('/tmp/bar.rb', <<~RUBY) Fiber.yield RUBY Fiber.new { require '/tmp/bar.rb' }.resume Fiber.new { require '/tmp/bar.rb' }.resume ``` If this is expected, I guess users should be told this is a possibility in the API dosc? Because from a user perspective, you don't really have elements to anticipate a deadlock there if the docs don't warn you. A similar deadlock can be triggered with an `autoload` instead of a `require`: ```ruby # This produces a deadlock. File.write('/tmp/bar.rb', <<~RUBY) Fiber.yield Bar = 1 RUBY autoload :Bar, '/tmp/bar.rb' Fiber.new { Bar }.resume Fiber.new { Bar }.resume ``` A different matter is fibers managed by fiber schedulers. I have not been able to enter a deadlock with the fiber schedulers I have tried, but from the point of view of the user, doing something like I/O or sleeping at the top-level is not unlike that manual `Fiber.yield` above. The contract for fiber schedulers is mostly an interface, but it does not address this, at least in an explicit way. Do fiber schedulers guarantee anything about this with the current contract? I'd be glad to volunteer docs with the conclusions of this thread. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 1

[ruby-core:117032] Invitation to EuRuKo 2024
by m.isabegovic＠hotmail.com 01 Mar '24

01 Mar '24

Hi folks! it's my pleasure to introduce myself here and invite you to join us for EuRuKo in Bosnia & Herzegovina this September, as the first-ever Ruby conference in the country. You can find more information about the conference here: https://2024.euruko.org/ My name is Muhamed Isabegovic, I've been a Rubyist since 2016 and I managed to win the community vote to organize EuRuKo in my country. Registrations are not ready, I am hoping we kick them off during March. I will write to this thread once that happens as well, however that shouldn't stop me from inviting you to join EuRuKo free of charge. Similar as for RubyKaigi (text is copied from that thread), all Ruby core team members (who have direct commit access to the Git repo) are invited to the conference with free admission. If you are interested in joining us, please send an e-mail to organisers(a)euruko.org from one of the e-mails listed on the committer e-mail list -> https://github.com/ruby/ruby-commit-hook/blob/master/config/email.yml , so we can identify you as Ruby core. Once we setup the platform with tickets, you will receive an invitation which will enable you to login and join the conference in-person free of charge. (another steal from RubyKaigi:) Also, EuRuKo wants talk proposals from true Ruby hackers like you who are reading this message. Our CFP form is already open, and will be closed April 15th! So if you have anything in your mind that you want to share with the audience there, please submit and we'll be happy to review. https://www.papercall.io/euruko2024 -- Muhamed Isabegovic, Host of EuRuKo 2024

1 0

[ruby-core:117031] [Ruby master Feature#15554] warn/error passing a block to a method which never use a block
by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 01 Mar '24

01 Mar '24

Issue #15554 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). One concern if it's verbose-only is it won't help for typical mistakes with blocks like: ```ruby p foo do body end ``` It would need to warn by default to address that. ---------------------------------------- Feature #15554: warn/error passing a block to a method which never use a block https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15554#change-107100 * Author: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) * Status: Open * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) ---------------------------------------- # Abstract Warn or raise an ArgumentError if block is passed to a method which does not use a block. In other words, detect "block user methods" implicitly and only "block user methods" can accept a block. # Background Sometimes, we pass a block to a method which ignores the passed block accidentally. ``` def my_open(name) open(name) end # user hopes it works as Kernel#open which invokes a block with opened file. my_open(name){|f| important_work_with f } # but simply ignored... ``` To solve this issue, this feature request propose showing warnings or raising an exception on such case. Last developer's meeting, matz proposed `&nil` which declares this method never receive a block. It is explicit, but it is tough to add this `&nil` parameter declaration to all of methods (do you want to add it to `def []=(i, e, &nil)`?). (I agree `&nil` is valuable on some situations) # Spec ## Define "use a block" methods We need to define which method accepts a block and which method does not. * (1) method has a block parameter (`&b`) * (2) method body has `yield' * (3) method body has `super` (ZSUPER in internal terminology) or `super(...)` * (4) method body has singleton method (optional) (1) and (2) is very clear. I need to explain about (3) and (4). (3). `super` (ZSUPER) passes all parameters as arguments. So there is no surprise that which can accept `block`. However `super(...)` also passes a block if no explicit block passing (like `super(){}` or `super(&b)`) are written. I'm not sure we need to continue this strange specification, but to keep compatibility depending this spec, I add this rule. (4). surprisingly, the following code invoke a block: ``` def foo class << Object.new yield end end foo{ p :ok } #=> :ok ``` I'm also not sure we need to keep this spec, but to allow this spec, I added (4) rule. Strictly speaking, it is not required, but we don't keep the link from singleton class ISeq to lexical parent iseq now, so I added it. ## Exceptional cases A method called by `super` doesn`t warn warning even if this method doesn't use a block. The rule (3) can pass blocks easily and there are many methods don`t use a block. So my patch ignores callings by `super`. ## corner cases There are several cases to use block without (1)-(4) rules. ### `Proc.new/proc/lambda` without a block Now it was deprecated in r66772 (commit:9f1fb0a17febc59356d58cef5e98db61a3c03550). Related discussion: [Bug #15539] ### `block_given?` `block_given?` expects block, but I believe we use it with `yield` or a block parameter. If you know the usecase without them, please tell us. ### `yield` in `eval` We can't know `yield` (or (3), (4) rule) in an `eval` evaluating string at calling time. ``` def foo eval('yield`) end foo{} # at calling time, # we can't know the method foo can accept a block or not. ``` So I added a warning to use `yield` in `eval` like that: `test.rb:4: warning: use yield in eval will not be supported in Ruby 3.` Workaround is use a block parameter explicitly. ``` def foo &b eval('b.call') end foo{ p :ok } ``` # Implementation Strategy is: * [compile time] introduce `iseq::has_yield` field and check it if the iseq (or child iseq) contains `yield` (or something) * [calling time] if block is given, check `iseq::has_yield` flag and show warning (or raise an exception) https://gist.github.com/ko1/c9148ad0224bf5befa3cc76ed2220c0b On this patch, now it raises an error to make it easy to detect. It is easy to switch to show the warning. # Evaluation and discussion I tried to avoid ruby's tests. https://gist.github.com/ko1/37483e7940cdc4390bf8eb0001883786 Here is a patch. There are several patterns to avoid warnings. ## tests for `block_given?`, `Proc.new` (and similar) without block Add a dummy block parameter. It is test-specific issue. ## empty `each` Some tests add `each` methods do not `yield`, like: `def each; end`. Maybe test-specific issue, and adding a dummy block parameter. ## Subtyping / duck typing https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/c01a5ee85e2d6a7128cccafb143bfa694284ca87/… This `parse` method doesn't use `yield`, but other sub-type's `parse` methods use. ## `super` with `new` method https://gist.github.com/ko1/37483e7940cdc4390bf8eb0001883786#file-tests-pat… This method override `Class#new` method and introduce a hook with block (yield a block in this hook code). https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/lib/rubygems/package/tar_writer.rb#… In this method, call `super` and it also passing a block. However, called `initialize` doesn't use a block. ## Change robustness This change reduce robustness for API change. `Delegator` requires to support `__getobj__` for client classes. Now `__getobj__` should accept block but most of `__getobj__` clients do not call given block. https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/lib/delegate.rb#L80 This is because of delegator.rb's API change. https://gist.github.com/ko1/37483e7940cdc4390bf8eb0001883786#file-tests-pat… Nobu says calling block is not required (ignoring a block is no problem) so it is not a bug for delegator client classes. ## Found issues. ``` [ 2945/20449] Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply = 0.00 s 1) Error: Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "with_timeout" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:787) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:635:in `test_do_reply' [ 2946/20449] Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply_local = 0.00 s 2) Error: Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply_local: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "with_timeout" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:787) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:657:in `test_do_reply_local' [10024/20449] TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platform_mswin = 0.01 s 3) Error: TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platform_mswin: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "util_set_arch" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/lib/rubygems/test_case.rb:1053) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rubygems/test_gem_request_set_gem_dependency_api.rb:655:in `test_platform_mswin' [10025/20449] TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platforms = 0.01 s 4) Error: TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platforms: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "util_set_arch" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/lib/rubygems/test_case.rb:1053) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rubygems/test_gem_request_set_gem_dependency_api.rb:711:in `test_platforms' ``` These 4 detection show the problem. `with_timeout` method (used in Rinda test) and `util_set_arch` method (used in Rubygems test) simply ignore the given block. So these tests are simply ignored. I reported them. (https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/2601) ## raise an error or show a warning? At least, Ruby 2.7 should show warning for this kind of violation with `-w`. How about for Ruby3? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:117020] [Ruby master Feature#15554] warn/error passing a block to a method which never use a block
by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) 01 Mar '24

01 Mar '24

Issue #15554 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). This would be a verbose-only warning right? ---------------------------------------- Feature #15554: warn/error passing a block to a method which never use a block https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15554#change-107084 * Author: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) * Status: Open * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) ---------------------------------------- # Abstract Warn or raise an ArgumentError if block is passed to a method which does not use a block. In other words, detect "block user methods" implicitly and only "block user methods" can accept a block. # Background Sometimes, we pass a block to a method which ignores the passed block accidentally. ``` def my_open(name) open(name) end # user hopes it works as Kernel#open which invokes a block with opened file. my_open(name){|f| important_work_with f } # but simply ignored... ``` To solve this issue, this feature request propose showing warnings or raising an exception on such case. Last developer's meeting, matz proposed `&nil` which declares this method never receive a block. It is explicit, but it is tough to add this `&nil` parameter declaration to all of methods (do you want to add it to `def []=(i, e, &nil)`?). (I agree `&nil` is valuable on some situations) # Spec ## Define "use a block" methods We need to define which method accepts a block and which method does not. * (1) method has a block parameter (`&b`) * (2) method body has `yield' * (3) method body has `super` (ZSUPER in internal terminology) or `super(...)` * (4) method body has singleton method (optional) (1) and (2) is very clear. I need to explain about (3) and (4). (3). `super` (ZSUPER) passes all parameters as arguments. So there is no surprise that which can accept `block`. However `super(...)` also passes a block if no explicit block passing (like `super(){}` or `super(&b)`) are written. I'm not sure we need to continue this strange specification, but to keep compatibility depending this spec, I add this rule. (4). surprisingly, the following code invoke a block: ``` def foo class << Object.new yield end end foo{ p :ok } #=> :ok ``` I'm also not sure we need to keep this spec, but to allow this spec, I added (4) rule. Strictly speaking, it is not required, but we don't keep the link from singleton class ISeq to lexical parent iseq now, so I added it. ## Exceptional cases A method called by `super` doesn`t warn warning even if this method doesn't use a block. The rule (3) can pass blocks easily and there are many methods don`t use a block. So my patch ignores callings by `super`. ## corner cases There are several cases to use block without (1)-(4) rules. ### `Proc.new/proc/lambda` without a block Now it was deprecated in r66772 (commit:9f1fb0a17febc59356d58cef5e98db61a3c03550). Related discussion: [Bug #15539] ### `block_given?` `block_given?` expects block, but I believe we use it with `yield` or a block parameter. If you know the usecase without them, please tell us. ### `yield` in `eval` We can't know `yield` (or (3), (4) rule) in an `eval` evaluating string at calling time. ``` def foo eval('yield`) end foo{} # at calling time, # we can't know the method foo can accept a block or not. ``` So I added a warning to use `yield` in `eval` like that: `test.rb:4: warning: use yield in eval will not be supported in Ruby 3.` Workaround is use a block parameter explicitly. ``` def foo &b eval('b.call') end foo{ p :ok } ``` # Implementation Strategy is: * [compile time] introduce `iseq::has_yield` field and check it if the iseq (or child iseq) contains `yield` (or something) * [calling time] if block is given, check `iseq::has_yield` flag and show warning (or raise an exception) https://gist.github.com/ko1/c9148ad0224bf5befa3cc76ed2220c0b On this patch, now it raises an error to make it easy to detect. It is easy to switch to show the warning. # Evaluation and discussion I tried to avoid ruby's tests. https://gist.github.com/ko1/37483e7940cdc4390bf8eb0001883786 Here is a patch. There are several patterns to avoid warnings. ## tests for `block_given?`, `Proc.new` (and similar) without block Add a dummy block parameter. It is test-specific issue. ## empty `each` Some tests add `each` methods do not `yield`, like: `def each; end`. Maybe test-specific issue, and adding a dummy block parameter. ## Subtyping / duck typing https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/c01a5ee85e2d6a7128cccafb143bfa694284ca87/… This `parse` method doesn't use `yield`, but other sub-type's `parse` methods use. ## `super` with `new` method https://gist.github.com/ko1/37483e7940cdc4390bf8eb0001883786#file-tests-pat… This method override `Class#new` method and introduce a hook with block (yield a block in this hook code). https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/lib/rubygems/package/tar_writer.rb#… In this method, call `super` and it also passing a block. However, called `initialize` doesn't use a block. ## Change robustness This change reduce robustness for API change. `Delegator` requires to support `__getobj__` for client classes. Now `__getobj__` should accept block but most of `__getobj__` clients do not call given block. https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/lib/delegate.rb#L80 This is because of delegator.rb's API change. https://gist.github.com/ko1/37483e7940cdc4390bf8eb0001883786#file-tests-pat… Nobu says calling block is not required (ignoring a block is no problem) so it is not a bug for delegator client classes. ## Found issues. ``` [ 2945/20449] Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply = 0.00 s 1) Error: Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "with_timeout" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:787) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:635:in `test_do_reply' [ 2946/20449] Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply_local = 0.00 s 2) Error: Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply_local: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "with_timeout" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:787) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:657:in `test_do_reply_local' [10024/20449] TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platform_mswin = 0.01 s 3) Error: TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platform_mswin: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "util_set_arch" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/lib/rubygems/test_case.rb:1053) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rubygems/test_gem_request_set_gem_dependency_api.rb:655:in `test_platform_mswin' [10025/20449] TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platforms = 0.01 s 4) Error: TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platforms: ArgumentError: passing block to the method "util_set_arch" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/lib/rubygems/test_case.rb:1053) is never used. /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rubygems/test_gem_request_set_gem_dependency_api.rb:711:in `test_platforms' ``` These 4 detection show the problem. `with_timeout` method (used in Rinda test) and `util_set_arch` method (used in Rubygems test) simply ignore the given block. So these tests are simply ignored. I reported them. (https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/2601) ## raise an error or show a warning? At least, Ruby 2.7 should show warning for this kind of violation with `-w`. How about for Ruby3? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0