| RFC-0054: Parameter attributes | |
|---|---|
| Status | Accepted |
| Areas |
|
| Description | We can already apply attributes to various elements of FIDL but not to parameters. This is a proposal to extend the grammar to accept parameter attributes. |
| Authors | |
| Date submitted (year-month-day) | 2019-11-21 |
| Date reviewed (year-month-day) | 2019-12-12 |
"A Chance to write self documenting APIs"
Summary
We can already apply attributes to various elements of FIDL but not to parameters. This is a proposal to extend the grammar to accept parameter attributes.
Relation to other RFCs
This RFC was superseded by:
Motivation
Having attributes on more language elements increases the language consistency and also an enabler for further features in the future. Any fact about the API that cannot be encoded in the type system can be encoded in attributes instead. Any fact that cannot be encoded in the type system can be captured with more structure in attributes, simplifying late validation in various backends. These attributes can be useful for linting and generators can also leverage this information to generate better code or propagate this to the attributes of the target language. This can help static and/or dynamic analysis of the target language. Moreover, attributes can be a great way to prototype possible extensions or refinements to the type system.
The driving use case for this feature is to check for handle leak, double free and use after free errors.
The Kernel ABI (i.e. syscalls) are also expressed in FIDL format and often the ownership of handles are not clear. Should the user call handle_close after a task_kill syscall or not? This is not clear from the documentation. Other syscalls have very clear documentation but it can only be checked by manually:
[Transport = "Syscall"]
protocol handle {
/// Close a handle.
/// Rights: None.
handle_close(handle handle) -> (status status);
/// Close a number of handles.
/// Rights: None.
handle_close_many(vector<handle> handles) -> (status status);
/// Duplicate a handle.
/// Rights: handle must have ZX_RIGHT_DUPLICATE.
handle_duplicate(handle handle, rights rights) -> (status status, handle out);
/// Replace a handle.
/// Rights: None.
handle_replace(handle handle, rights rights) -> (status status, handle out);
};
After we enable attributes on parameters we can replace the comments with attributes. Those attributes are as readable as comments and they can help generators to generate code that can be checked using static and dynamic analysis tools, like this. The kazoo tool can generate the corresponding annotations for C and C++ bindings making the Clang Static Analyzer capable of catching handle misuse errors.
The prototype already found a number of bugs in Fuchsia.
Design
The proposal is to add parameter attributes to the FIDL source language. These attributes should be exposed in the JSON IR, in a similar fashion than other attributes. We might need to update the formatter. It does not affect the wire format. The language bindings are only affected by introducing specific annotations that can change the generated code but they are not affected by this proposal directly.
Our proposal only changes one production rule of the FIDL grammar:
- parameter = type-constructor , IDENTIFIER ;
+ parameter = ( attribute-list ) , type-constructor , IDENTIFIER ;
We also need to diagnose triple slash documentation or doc attributes on parameters.
Implementation strategy
This change is backward compatible, no migration required. There are plenty of documentation that needs to be updated along with the feature. This proposal would change the parser and add new information to the IR. A potential change to the generators can be made separately, when new parameter attributes are introduced.
Ergonomics
The has the potential of making FIDL APIs easier to understand and bindings more friendly to static and dynamic analysis. The additional complexity cost should be low. See next section for examples with potential parameter attributes. Editor support might need a small update as well.
Documentation and examples
The grammar documentation and the language reference need a small update. We might want to add some style guidelines how to break lines in certain cases for parameter attributes. This might not be very important as attributes are not mentioned in the current style guide at all.
See the motivation section for examples.
Backwards compatibility
This proposal maintains both FIDL source and wire ABI compatibility. The specific attributes that are introduced later might cause wire ABI incompatibility. Those attributes should be required to pass the RFC process separately.
Performance
Future attributes might have a good impact on performance. More information about the APIs could potentially help the optimizer of the target language.
Security
The specific attributes might improve security as they can aid static and dynamic analysis tools in the target languages.
Testing
Tests will be written for fidlc to ensure correct parsing, sensible diagnostics for compilation failures. The generated JSON IR will also be tested. In order to be able to test we need to introduce at least one attribute that is applicable to parameters. Since the generators will not be touched at first, they do not require additional testing.
Drawbacks, alternatives, and unknowns
The implementation cost is relatively low.
RFC-0044 is a possible alternative. Accepting that proposal introduces some inconsistencies into the language as one way of describing parameters would enable users to write parameter attributes while the other does not. Also, RFC-0044 has a performance costs so some protocols, like syscall should use it sparingly or not at all.
Prior art and references
Protobuf have options on messages, which has a somewhat similar behavior to parameter attributes. FIDL already have attributes on some language elements like members and protocols.