kubkon edited PR #1242 from yanix-io-error
to master
:
This PR may seem somewhat controversial at first, but hear me
out first. Currently, Yanix would return a custom error that's a
wrapper around three other error types returned by various entities
inside Rust'slibstd
. In particular, Yanix's error type would wrap
io::Error
,num::TryFromIntError
andffi::NulError
. It turns
out that there is a natural conversion between the first and the last
and provided by the standard library, i.e.,From<ffi::NulError> for io::Error
is provided. So at the surface it may seem that only the first two
wrapped error types are worth keeping.Digging a little bit deeper into
libstd
,num::TryFromIntError
is essentially speaking only a marker that the integral conversion
went wrong. The struct implementing this error stores a unit type,
and nothing more. It therefore seems like a waste to wrap this
particular error when we could unify everything underio::Error
.
And so, whenever we perform an int conversion, I suggest we simply
remap the error toio::Error::from_raw_os_error(libc::EOVERFLOW)
since this carries a comparable amount of information.As a result of completely discarding
yanix::Error
custom error type,
we are invariably simplifyingyanix
itself, but also allowing
wasi-common
to simplify in several places as well.I'm curious to see what you guys reckon!
kubkon updated PR #1242 from yanix-io-error
to master
:
This PR may seem somewhat controversial at first, but hear me
out first. Currently, Yanix would return a custom error that's a
wrapper around three other error types returned by various entities
inside Rust'slibstd
. In particular, Yanix's error type would wrap
io::Error
,num::TryFromIntError
andffi::NulError
. It turns
out that there is a natural conversion between the first and the last
and provided by the standard library, i.e.,From<ffi::NulError> for io::Error
is provided. So at the surface it may seem that only the first two
wrapped error types are worth keeping.Digging a little bit deeper into
libstd
,num::TryFromIntError
is essentially speaking only a marker that the integral conversion
went wrong. The struct implementing this error stores a unit type,
and nothing more. It therefore seems like a waste to wrap this
particular error when we could unify everything underio::Error
.
And so, whenever we perform an int conversion, I suggest we simply
remap the error toio::Error::from_raw_os_error(libc::EOVERFLOW)
since this carries a comparable amount of information.As a result of completely discarding
yanix::Error
custom error type,
we are invariably simplifyingyanix
itself, but also allowing
wasi-common
to simplify in several places as well.I'm curious to see what you guys reckon!
kubkon edited PR #1242 from yanix-io-error
to master
:
This PR may seem somewhat controversial at first, but hear me out first. Currently, Yanix would return a custom error that's a wrapper around three other error types returned by various entities inside Rust's
libstd
. In particular, Yanix's error type would wrapio::Error
,num::TryFromIntError
andffi::NulError
. It turns out that there is a natural conversion between the first and the last and provided by the standard library, i.e.,From<ffi::NulError> for io::Error
is provided. So at the surface it may seem that only the first two wrapped error types are worth keeping.Digging a little bit deeper into
libstd
,num::TryFromIntError
is essentially speaking only a marker that the integral conversion went wrong. The struct implementing this error stores a unit type, and nothing more. It therefore seems like a waste to wrap this particular error when we could unify everything underio::Error
. And so, whenever we perform an int conversion, I suggest we simply remap the error toio::Error::from_raw_os_error(libc::EOVERFLOW)
since this carries a comparable amount of information.As a result of completely discarding
yanix::Error
custom error type, we are invariably simplifyingyanix
itself, but also allowingwasi-common
to simplify in several places as well.I'm curious to see what you guys reckon!
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
We can just
unwrap()
this, becausereadlinkat
returns anssize_t
which is either -1 (handled above) or non-negative and will fit in asize_t
/usize
, which is what we're converting it to here.
sunfishcode submitted PR Review.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
FIONREAD
returns a non-negativeint
if it doesn't fail, or it'll fit in au32
if it does. Or, if we want to be super cautious and avoid assumingint
is 32-bit, we could widenfionread
's return type here, since the one place that calls it wants au64
anyway. But either way, we canunwrap()
the conversion fromint
here.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
This can overflow, and it's an error if it does, but: the cookie is an opaque value, and applications aren't supposed to do arithmetic on them or pick their own values or have any awareness of the numeric range of the values. They're just supposed to pass back in the values that we give them. And any value we give them will be convertable back to
long
, because that's the type the OS gives them to us in. So, this isn't anEOVERFLOW
, it's anEINVAL
.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
lseek
returns anoff_t
, which we can assume is a non-negativei64
if it doesn't fail. So we canunwrap()
this conversion.
sunfishcode submitted PR Review.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
This conversion can fail, because it's converting into
int
. But in that case, the user is providing a dubiously large hint. I don't know specifically howF_RDADVISE
works, but offhand, a 2+ GiB advisory read async seems unlikely to help with any kind of performance, so my suggestion here would be to just have this function do nothing if the size overflows here.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
When
poll
doesn't fail, its return value is a non-negativeint
, which will always be convertable tousize
, so we canunwrap()
here.
kubkon created PR Review Comment:
Right. I won't widen the return type to
u64
at this stage, but I'll leave a note (essentially a copy-paste of your excellent explanation) for future consideration should we want to re-visit this. Does it makes sense?
kubkon submitted PR Review.
kubkon submitted PR Review.
kubkon created PR Review Comment:
SGTM! If I may expand on this a little bit, how about we
log::warn
if that's the case before returning early? This should provide some feedback to the user that they may have something wrongly configured, etc.
kubkon updated PR #1242 from yanix-io-error
to master
:
This PR may seem somewhat controversial at first, but hear me out first. Currently, Yanix would return a custom error that's a wrapper around three other error types returned by various entities inside Rust's
libstd
. In particular, Yanix's error type would wrapio::Error
,num::TryFromIntError
andffi::NulError
. It turns out that there is a natural conversion between the first and the last and provided by the standard library, i.e.,From<ffi::NulError> for io::Error
is provided. So at the surface it may seem that only the first two wrapped error types are worth keeping.Digging a little bit deeper into
libstd
,num::TryFromIntError
is essentially speaking only a marker that the integral conversion went wrong. The struct implementing this error stores a unit type, and nothing more. It therefore seems like a waste to wrap this particular error when we could unify everything underio::Error
. And so, whenever we perform an int conversion, I suggest we simply remap the error toio::Error::from_raw_os_error(libc::EOVERFLOW)
since this carries a comparable amount of information.As a result of completely discarding
yanix::Error
custom error type, we are invariably simplifyingyanix
itself, but also allowingwasi-common
to simplify in several places as well.I'm curious to see what you guys reckon!
sunfishcode submitted PR Review.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
Good idea!
sunfishcode submitted PR Review.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
Yes. And actually, there's a subtlety I didn't mention. If you call
FIONREAD
on a file, it can overflow theint
, and at least Linux doesn't check the overflow, but we have code to handle that case in the code that calls this function, and that's what lets us assume that it won't overflow. Fortunately, anunwrap()
means that if any OS ever does give us a negative number that we don't expect, it won't pass by silently.
alexcrichton submitted PR Review.
alexcrichton created PR Review Comment:
FWIW I think ideally we would use
nread.try_into()?
here. I agree with the comment here but "unwrap" is pretty scary when reading this sort of code and feels like something that would best be entirely blanket avoided. If the?
-conversion works it's also even more ergonomic thannread.try_into().unwrap()
!Basically I like that there's a comment here to explain why the unwrap is ok, and I don't disagree with it, but I think it would be better idiomatically to use
?
if we can to propagate errors to consistently "never use unwrap" anywhere in wasi-common. (in theory at least). If the error handling is more verbose than the literal 1-character?
symbol though then this is fine.
alexcrichton submitted PR Review.
alexcrichton created PR Review Comment:
Wanna go ahead and fix this for other platforms and remove the
: i64
here?
alexcrichton submitted PR Review.
alexcrichton created PR Review Comment:
I've seen this pattern in a few places at this point, and the
.unwrap()
here makes me a little uncomfortable. Could this perhaps be replaced with either a function that returns the last raw os error, or a function that extracts the raw os error and returns some other error if it can't be extracted? For example something like:fn last_raw_os_error() -> i32 { Error::last_os_error().raw_os_error().unwrap_or(-1) }or something like:
fn raw_os_error(err: &io::Error) -> Result<i32> { err.raw_os_error().ok_or_else(Errno::EIO) }
alexcrichton submitted PR Review.
alexcrichton created PR Review Comment:
@sunfishcode has some counterpoints to this thinking on Zulip, so I don't think that we should remove the
.unwrap()
for now. Let's leave it here and handle the bug report if it ever comes in!
sunfishcode submitted PR Review.
sunfishcode created PR Review Comment:
The docs for
raw_os_error
guarantee that it'll returnSome
on an error returned fromlast_os_error
, so theunwrap
is guaranteed to succeed.It doesn't matter so much in
isatty
here, but across wasi-common we often have subtle reasoning about specific error codes, so introducing new conditions under which errors likeEIO
or even-1
could materialize makes that tricky.
kubkon submitted PR Review.
kubkon created PR Review Comment:
FWIW, both of you guys make really good points. So in order to strike a middle ground, I've made sure to leave comments at every occurrence of
unwrap
.OK, so ultimately let's stick with
unwrap
s for now, until we get some bug reports. :+1:
kubkon submitted PR Review.
kubkon created PR Review Comment:
Ah, you're probably referring to #1231. Good call, lemme do just that!
kubkon submitted PR Review.
kubkon created PR Review Comment:
As @sunfishcode pointed out, according to the docs, this cannot ever fail as we only ever call
unwrap
afterio::Error
was populated with a raw OS error, either withio::Error::last_os_error()
orio::Error::from_raw_os_error()
. I do agree with you @alexcrichton that this is pretty subtle in the sense that we're relying on this prior knowledge that we've actually done just that. If it wasn't the case, we'd in a lot of trouble. Then again, sinceyanix
, and in general, the syscall impl code inwasi-common
_only_ (at least for now!) deals with raw OS errno values, this is safe. And since we're constantly evolving WASI, having panics around those calls might be a good thing to catch bugs that otherwise would be silently swallowed as @sunfishcode pointed out.
kubkon edited PR Review Comment.
kubkon updated PR #1242 from yanix-io-error
to master
:
This PR may seem somewhat controversial at first, but hear me out first. Currently, Yanix would return a custom error that's a wrapper around three other error types returned by various entities inside Rust's
libstd
. In particular, Yanix's error type would wrapio::Error
,num::TryFromIntError
andffi::NulError
. It turns out that there is a natural conversion between the first and the last and provided by the standard library, i.e.,From<ffi::NulError> for io::Error
is provided. So at the surface it may seem that only the first two wrapped error types are worth keeping.Digging a little bit deeper into
libstd
,num::TryFromIntError
is essentially speaking only a marker that the integral conversion went wrong. The struct implementing this error stores a unit type, and nothing more. It therefore seems like a waste to wrap this particular error when we could unify everything underio::Error
. And so, whenever we perform an int conversion, I suggest we simply remap the error toio::Error::from_raw_os_error(libc::EOVERFLOW)
since this carries a comparable amount of information.As a result of completely discarding
yanix::Error
custom error type, we are invariably simplifyingyanix
itself, but also allowingwasi-common
to simplify in several places as well.I'm curious to see what you guys reckon!
kubkon submitted PR Review.
kubkon created PR Review Comment:
Done in ed98a80.
alexcrichton submitted PR Review.
sunfishcode submitted PR Review.
sunfishcode merged PR #1242.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC