Validate source snippet when format input is raw string

[gurry]

View all comments

Fixes #114865

The issue occurred because the user's proc macro respanned the format arg to an unrelated multi-byte string and we ICE'd by landing in the middle of a multi-byte char.

This PR adds validation that prevents the parser from trying to walk such obviously wrong snippets. Such validation already existed for non-raw strings. This PR adds it for raw strings as well.

[rustbot]

r? @TaKO8Ki

rustbot has assigned @TaKO8Ki.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 21 candidates
• Random selection from 12 candidates

[TaKO8Ki]

Thank you. I found another related ICE while reviewing the PR, so if possible, could you take a look at fixing that as well?

The implementation might have a somewhat broader impact, so I’d like to review it more carefully on my side. Please give me a little more time.

View changes since this review

[gurry]

Thank you. I found another related ICE while reviewing the PR, so if possible, could you take a look at fixing that as well?

The implementation might have a somewhat broader impact, so I’d like to review it more carefully on my side. Please give me a little more time.

View changes since this review

No worries. Please take your time. I'll fix the second ICE in the meanwhile.

[TaKO8Ki]

@bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 2546166 (254616605b508b115246302fd7e3fd0b12bf7af1, parent: 1ed488274bec5bf5cfe6bf7a1cc089abcc4ebd68)

[TaKO8Ki]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 0421599 (04215991e86652a3338382526b1fbca9130d42c2, parent: 1ed488274bec5bf5cfe6bf7a1cc089abcc4ebd68)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0421599): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-3.9%, -1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-3.9%, -1.2%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -2.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 492.161s -> 479.296s (-2.61%)
Artifact size: 395.78 MiB -> 395.80 MiB (0.00%)

[gurry]

@TaKO8Ki Please have another look

[TaKO8Ki]

Sorry, I completely overlooked this PR. Given my current review capacity, I’m going to reroll it. @rustbot reroll

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• This PR is based on an upstream commit that is older than 28 days.

  It's recommended to update your branch according to the rustc-dev-guide.

[chenyukang]

Thanks!
@bors r=chenyukang

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 43c78ad has been approved by chenyukang

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors rollup
Perf is noise

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: chenyukang
Duration: 3h 14m 51s
Pushing 44860d3 to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing a3e96d8 (parent) -> 44860d3 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 4 test diffs

Stage 1

• [ui] tests/ui/proc-macro/ice-wrong-span-114865.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)

Stage 2

• [ui] tests/ui/proc-macro/ice-wrong-span-114865.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Additionally, 2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-3
• J1: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1, aarch64-msvc-1, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend, test-various, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-debug, x86_64-gnu-gcc, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 44860d3e9ef700cac0b4a61d924f41f46bf1b447 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. x86_64-gnu-debug: 1h 31m -> 2h 4m (+35.4%)
2. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 1h 46m -> 2h 18m (+30.4%)
3. dist-i686-linux: 1h 26m -> 1h 50m (+28.5%)
4. dist-x86_64-apple: 1h 43m -> 2h 6m (+22.1%)
5. dist-apple-various: 1h 29m -> 1h 47m (+20.3%)
6. arm-android: 1h 44m -> 1h 26m (-16.6%)
7. aarch64-apple: 2h 28m -> 2h 51m (+14.9%)
8. x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-1: 1h 7m -> 1h 16m (+13.5%)
9. dist-aarch64-apple: 1h 48m -> 2h (+11.9%)
10. pr-check-2: 38m 1s -> 42m 29s (+11.8%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (44860d3): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 5.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.2%	[5.2%, 5.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-7.3%, -0.7%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 498.188s -> 495.993s (-0.44%)
Artifact size: 394.46 MiB -> 394.50 MiB (0.01%)