The FFI-unwind project group, announced in this RFC, is working to extend the language to support unwinding that crosses FFI boundaries.

We have reached our first technical decision point, on a question we have been discussing internally for quite a while. This blog post lays out the arguments on each side of the issue and invites the Rust community to join us at an upcoming meeting to help finalize our decision, which will be formalized and published as our first language-change RFC. This RFC will propose an "MVP" specification for well-defined cross-language unwinding.

The meeting will be on March 2nd.

Background: what is unwinding?

Exceptions are a familiar control flow mechanism in many programming languages. They are particularly commonplace in managed languages such as Java, but they are also part of the C++ language, which introduced them to the world of unmanaged systems programming.

When an exception is thrown, the runtime unwinds the stack, essentially traversing it backwards and calling clean-up or error-recovery code such as destructors or catch blocks.

Compilers may implement their own unwinding mechanisms, but in native code such as Rust binaries, the mechanism is more commonly provided by the platform ABI.

It is well known that Rust does not have exceptions as such. But Rust does support unwinding! There are two scenarios that will cause unwinding to occur:

By default, Rust's panic!() unwinds the stack.

unwinds the stack. Using FFI, Rust can call functions in other languages (such as C++) that can unwind the stack. There are some special cases where C libraries can actually cause unwinding. For instance, on Microsoft platforms, longjmp is implemented as "forced unwinding" (see below)



Currently, when foreign (non-Rust) code invokes Rust code, the behavior of a panic!() unwind that "escapes" from Rust is explicitly undefined. Similarly, when Rust calls a foreign function that unwinds, the behavior once the unwind operation encounters Rust frames is undefined. The primary reason for this is to ensure that Rust implementations may use their own unwinding mechanism, which may not be compatible with the platform-provided "native" unwinding mechanism. Currently, however, rustc uses the native mechanism, and there are no plans to change this.

Forced unwinding

Platform ABIs can define a special kind of unwinding called "forced unwinding." This type of unwinding works regardless of whether the code being unwound supports unwinding or not. However, destructors may not be executed if the frames being unwound do not have unwinding support.

There are two common examples of forced unwinding:

On Windows platforms, longjmp is implemented as a forced unwind.

is implemented as a forced unwind. On glibc Linux, pthread_exit and pthread_cancel are implemented as a forced unwind. In fact, pthread_cancel can cause all manner of C functions to unwind, including common functions like read and write . (For a complete list, search for "cancellation points" in the pthreads man page.)

and are implemented as a forced unwind.

Requirements for any cross-language unwinding specification

Unwinding between Rust functions (and in particular unwinding of Rust panics) may not necessarily use the system unwinding mechanism In practice, we do use the system mechanism today, but we would like to reserve the freedom to change this.

If you enable -Cpanic=abort , we are able to optimize the size of binaries to remove most code related to unwinding. Even with -Cpanic=unwind it should be possible to optimize away code when unwinding is known to never occur. In practice, most "C" functions are never expected to unwind (because they are written in C, for example, and not in C++). However, because unwinding is now part of most system ABIs, even C functions can unwind — most notably cancellation points triggered by pthread_cancel .

, we are able to optimize the size of binaries to remove most code related to unwinding. Changing the behavior from -Cpanic=unwind to -Cpanic=abort should not cause Undefined Behavior. However, this may not be tenable, or at least not without making binaries much larger. See the discussion below for more details. It may, of course, cause programs to abort that used to execute successfully. This could occur if a panic would've been caught and recovered.

to should not cause Undefined Behavior. We cannot change the ABI (the "C" in extern "C" ) of functions in the libc crate, because this would be a breaking change: function pointers of different ABIs have different types. This is relevant for the libc functions which may perform forced unwinding when pthread_cancel is called.

in ) of functions in the libc crate, because this would be a breaking change: function pointers of different ABIs have different types.

The primary question: introduce a new ABI, or let the "C" ABI permit unwinding?

The core question that we would like to decide is whether the "C" ABI, as defined by Rust, should permit unwinding.

This is not a question we expected to be debating. We've long declared that unwinding through Rust's "C" ABI is undefined behavior. In part, this is because nobody had spent the time to figure out what the correct behavior would be, or how to implement it, although (as we'll see shortly) there are other good reasons for this choice.

In any case, in PR #65646, @Amanieu proposed that we could, in fact, simply define the behavior of unwinding across "C" boundaries. In discussing this, discovered that the question of whether the "C" ABI should permit unwinding was less clear-cut than we had assumed.

If the "C" ABI does not permit unwinding, a new ABI, called "C unwind" , will be introduced specifically to support unwinding.

Three specific proposals

The project group has narrowed the design space down to three specific proposals. Two of these introduce the new "C unwind" ABI, and one does not.

Each proposal specifies the behavior of each type of unwind (Rust panic! , foreign (e.g. C++), and forced (e.g. pthread_exit )) when it encounters an ABI boundary under either the panic=unwind or panic=abort compile-mode.

Note that currently, catch_unwind does not intercept foreign unwinding (forced or unforced), and our initial RFCs will not change that. We may decide at a later date to define a way for Rust code to intercept foreign exceptions.

Throughout, the unwind generated by panic! will be referred to as panic -unwind.

Proposal 1: Introduce "C unwind" , minimal specification

"C" ABI boundary, panic=<any> panic -unwind: program aborts forced unwinding, no destructors: unwind behaves normally other foreign unwinding: undefined behavior

ABI boundary, "C unwind" ABI boundary With panic=unwind : all types of unwinding behave normally With panic=abort : all types of unwinding abort the program

ABI boundary

This proposal provides 2 ABIs, each suited for different purposes: you would generally use extern "C" when interacting with C APIs (making sure to avoid destructors where longjmp might be used), and extern "C unwind" when interacting with C++ APIs. The main advantage of this proposal is that switching between panic=unwind and panic=abort does not introduce UB if you have correctly marked all potential unwinding calls as "C unwind" (your program will abort instead).

Proposal 2: Introduce "C unwind" , forced unwinding always permitted

This is the same as the previous design, except that when compiled with panic=abort , forced unwinding would not be intercepted at "C unwind" ABI boundaries; that is, they would behave normally (though still UB if there are any destructors), without causing the program to abort. panic -unwind and non-forced foreign exceptions would still cause the program to abort.

The advantage of treating forced unwinding differently is that it reduces portability incompatibilities. Specifically, it ensures that using "C unwind" cannot cause longjmp or pthread_exit to stop working (abort the program) when the target platform and/or compile flags are changed. With proposal 1, longjmp will be able to cross "C unwind" boundaries except on Windows with MSVC under panic=abort , and pthread_exit will work inside "C unwind" functions except when linked with glibc under panic=abort . The downside of this proposal is that the abort stubs around "C unwind" calls in panic=abort become more complicated since they need to distinguish between different types of foreign exceptions.

Proposal 3: No new ABI

panic=unwind : unwind behaves normally

: unwind behaves normally panic=abort : panic -unwind: does not exist; panic! aborts the program forced unwinding, no destructors: unwind behaves normally other foreign unwinding: undefined behavior

:

The main advantage of this proposal is its simplicity: there is only one ABI and the behavior of panic=abort is identical to that of -fno-exceptions in C++. However this comes with the downside that switching to panic=abort may in some cases introduce UB (though only in unsafe code) if FFI calls unwind through Rust code.

Another advantage is that forced unwinding from existing functions defined in the libc crate such as pthread_exit and longjmp will be able to unwind frames with destructors when compiled with panic=unwind , which is not possible with the other proposals.

Comparison table for the proposed designs

In this table, "UB" stands for "undefined behavior". We believe that all of these instances of undefined behavior could be detected at runtime, but the code to do so would impose an undesirable code-size penalty, entirely negating the optimizations made possible by using panic=unwind or the non-unwinding "C" ABI. This code would therefore only be appropriate for debug builds. Additionally, the complexity of implementing such checks may outweight their benefits.

Note that unwinding through a frame that has destructors without running those destructors (e.g. because they have been optimized out by panic=abort ) is always undefined behavior.