Auto merge of #119037 - RalfJung:repr-c-abi-mismatch, r=scottmcm

do not allow ABI mismatches inside repr(C) types

In #115476 we allowed ABI mismatches inside `repr(C)` types. This wasn't really discussed much; I added it because from how I understand calling conventions, this should actually be safe in practice. However I entirely forgot to actually allow this in Miri, and in the mean time I have learned that too much ABI compatibility can be a problem for CFI (it can reject fewer calls so that gives an attacker more room to play with).

So I propose we take back that part about ABI compatibility in `repr(C)`. It is anyway something that C and C++ do not allow, as far as I understand.

In the future we might want to introduce a class of ABI compatibilities where we say "this is a bug and it may lead to aborting the process, but it won't lead to arbitrary misbehavior -- worst case it'll just transmute the arguments from the caller type to the callee type". That would give CFI leeway to reject such calls without introducing the risk of arbitrary UB. (The UB can still happen if the transmute leads to bad results, of course, but it wouldn't be due to ABI weirdness.)

#115476 hasn't reached beta yet so if we land this before Dec 22nd we can just pretend this all never happened. ;)  Otherwise we should do a beta backport (of the docs change at least).

Cc `@rust-lang/opsem` `@rust-lang/types`

library/core/src/primitive_docs.rs

@@ -1575,8 +1575,6 @@ mod prim_ref {}
 /// Furthermore, ABI compatibility satisfies the following general properties:
 ///
 /// - Every type is ABI-compatible with itself.
-/// - If `T1` and `T2` are ABI-compatible, then two `repr(C)` types that only differ because one
-///   field type was changed from `T1` to `T2` are ABI-compatible.
 /// - If `T1` and `T2` are ABI-compatible and `T2` and `T3` are ABI-compatible, then so are `T1` and
 ///   `T3` (i.e., ABI-compatibility is transitive).
 /// - If `T1` and `T2` are ABI-compatible, then so are `T2` and `T1` (i.e., ABI-compatibility is

src/tools/miri/tests/fail/function_pointers/abi_mismatch_repr_C.rs

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+use std::num::*;
+
+#[repr(C)]
+struct S1(NonZeroI32);
+
+#[repr(C)]
+struct S2(i32);
+
+fn callee(_s: S2) {}
+
+fn main() {
+    let fnptr: fn(S2) = callee;
+    let fnptr: fn(S1) = unsafe { std::mem::transmute(fnptr) };
+    fnptr(S1(NonZeroI32::new(1).unwrap()));
+    //~^ ERROR: calling a function with argument of type S2 passing data of type S1
+}

src/tools/miri/tests/fail/function_pointers/abi_mismatch_repr_C.stderr

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+error: Undefined Behavior: calling a function with argument of type S2 passing data of type S1
+  --> $DIR/abi_mismatch_repr_C.rs:LL:CC
+   |
+LL |     fnptr(S1(NonZeroI32::new(1).unwrap()));
+   |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ calling a function with argument of type S2 passing data of type S1
+   |
+   = help: this indicates a bug in the program: it performed an invalid operation, and caused Undefined Behavior
+   = help: see https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html for further information
+   = help: this means these two types are not *guaranteed* to be ABI-compatible across all targets
+   = help: if you think this code should be accepted anyway, please report an issue
+   = note: BACKTRACE:
+   = note: inside `main` at $DIR/abi_mismatch_repr_C.rs:LL:CC
+
+note: some details are omitted, run with `MIRIFLAGS=-Zmiri-backtrace=full` for a verbose backtrace
+
+error: aborting due to 1 previous error
+