Starting working on unsafe guidelines post

diff --git a/ralf/_drafts/types-as-contracts.md b/ralf/_drafts/types-as-contracts.md
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..5b1974f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ralf/_drafts/types-as-contracts.md
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+title: "Types as Contracts"
+categories: internship rust
+---
+
+Over the last couple of weeks of my [internship]({{ site.baseurl }}{% post_url
+2017-05-23-internship-starting %}), I have been working on a proposal for the "Unsafe Code Guidelines".
+I got some very encouraging feedback at the [Mozilla All-Hands](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/recapping-this-weeks-mozilla-all-hands/5465),
+and now I'd like to put this proposal out there and start having a discussion.
+<!-- MORE -->
+Warning: Long post is long.  You have been warned.
+
+If you need more context on unsafe code guidelines, I suggest you read my post on [undefined behavior]({{ site.baseurl }}{% post_url 2017-07-14-undefined-behavior %}) first.
+
+## It's in the Types
+
+Consider the following simple function:
+{% highlight rust %}
+fn simple(x: &mut i32, y: &mut f32) -> i32 {
+    *x = 3;
+    *y = 4.0;
+    *x
+}
+{% endhighlight %}
+
+As discussed in my previous post, we would like an unsafe Rust program that calls this function with aliasing pointers to be UB.
+In my view, the reason this is UB is given by the *type* of the function and, in particular, its arguments: `&mut` expresses uniqueness, so the memory pointed to by an `&mut` must not alias with anything else.
+Borrowing some terminology from related fields, we can see the function type as stating a *contract*:  We can call `simple` with non-aliasing pointers, and the function will behave.
+If we violate the contract, all bets are off.
+
+To realize this idea, we need to define, for every type, what is the contract associated with that type -- when are elements of this type *valid*?
+For some types, that's simple: `i32` is any four-byte value. `bool` is one byte, either `0` or `1`.
+Compound types like `(T, U)` are defined in terms of their constituent types:  The first component must be a valid `T`, the second component a valid `U`.
+
+Where it gets interesting is the reference types: `&mut T` says that we have a (non-null, properly aligned) pointer.
+Whatever the pointer points to, must be a valid `T`.
+*Moreover*, the memory range covered by this pointer (whose extent is given by the size of `T`) is exclusively accessed by this function -- no concurrent thread performs any access, and when we call unknown code and do *not* pass on the reference, we can rely on that unknown code not accessing this memory either.
+
+Similarly, for `&T`, we can rely on no-one performing any write access to this memory.
+At the same time, the contract for `&T` also says that we ourselves will not write to this memory either.
+This is a nice example showing that contracts go both ways:  The function can rely on the other party (the caller) having done their part by providing valid arguments, but the function also has to make guarantees itself.
+Another example of a guarantee provided by functions is their promise to provide a valid return value when they are done.
+
+My proposal for the unsafe code guidelines then is to validate the contract described by a function's types at the function boundaries, and to make it UB for the contract to be violated.
+In particular, `simple` would validate `x` and `y` immediately after being called, and it would be UB for them to alias.
+
+
+## Specification
+
+I have [previously written]({{ site.baseurl }}{% post_url 2017-07-14-undefined-behavior %}):
+
+> I also think that tooling to *detect* UB is of paramount importance [...].
+In fact, specifying a dynamic UB checker is a very good way to specify UB!
+Such a specification would describe the additional state that is needed at run-time to then *check* at every operation whether we are running into UB.
+
+Following this, I will in the following describe how to check for contract violations.
+I am considering a MIR program; if a Rust program is supposed to be checked, it has to be translated to MIR first.
+(You can [read up on my explanation]({{ site.baseurl }}{% post_url 2017-05-23-internship-starting %}) of why I think this is a good way to proceed.)
+The validation of reference types (in particular, their exclusive / read-only nature) will need some extra "instrumented" state -- also see [this previous post on the topic]({{ site.baseurl }}{% post_url 2017-06-06-MIR-semantics %}).[^1]
+The extra state in my proposal consists of something akin to a reader-writer lock for every memory location.
+I am first going to describe these locks and how they affect program behavior, before explaining contract validation.
+
+[^1]: If at this point you are under the impression that all these previous posts have been just building up and are now coming together in this proposal, you are not entirely wrong.
+
+### Memory locks
+
+### Validation
+