From: hunter_spawn@... Date: 2021-01-22T16:23:30+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:102193] [Ruby master Bug#17543] Ractor isolation broken by `self` in shareable proc Issue #17543 has been updated by MaxLap (Maxime Lapointe). Warning: The following code examples can be ugly. This is low level stuff meant to build nicer blocks on top. Viewer discretion is advised. As codebases using Ractors grow, I expect people would want to put the logic elsewhere, in classes, and module. Here is a very simple idea: ``` class Worker def initialize @nb_iteration = 0 end def work(other_ractor) value = 123 other_ractor.send([:use_this_block, Ractor.make_shareable(proc { |k| k << value}) ]) @nb_iteration += 1 end end other_ractor = Ractor.new do # use the block with receives... sleep(600) end w = Worker.new 10.times { w.work(other_ractor) } ``` I would expect this to work fine. The block is really just "Code I want the other side to execute". But making `self` shareable would break this. In my mind, it's a lot more confusing that later after the call, at one point, the object raises `FrozenError (can't modify frozen Worker...)`. There won't be a helpful error message, and that call could be far away, no hints that the Ractor did it. A bit of a footgun. And consider, if the developper needed my example to work, what would he do? I can think of many variations of "Make the self something else": ``` my_proc = Ractor.make_shareable(Object.instance_eval { -> (k) { k << value } }) other_ractor.send([:use_this_block, my_proc]) ``` But now this also needs a comment, because someone seeing this will be asking questions, unless it's used everywhere (not a pretty outlook either). It's also quite possible that the Ractor on the other side would use the block in an `instance_eval`, to change the `self`. It's a pattern that happen from time to time. In that case, the object was frozen (broken?) with no benefit. Now, consider the alternative proposed by Marc-Andre. The idea of making it a special object is to avoid needing special checks during the execution of a shared block, while still allowing error messages to be helpful. The inspect could be as explicit as desired: "". It can still get confusing if the self is passed around, but as soon as you try to use it, it would fail with a `NoMethodError`. The message could even have a link to a page with details about this and ractors. And if the person does want to go the make self sharable way, it's easy and clear: ``` Ractor.make_shareable(self) other_ractor.send([:use_this_block, Ractor.make_shareable(proc { |k| k << value})]) ``` ---------------------------------------- Bug #17543: Ractor isolation broken by `self` in shareable proc https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17543#change-90039 * Author: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) * ruby -v: 3.0.0p0 * Backport: 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Discussing with @MaxLap we realized that the `self` in a shareable proc is not properly isolated: ``` class Foo attr_accessor :x def pr Ractor.make_shareable(Proc.new { self }) end end f = Foo.new f.x = [1, 2, 3] Ractor.new(f.pr) { |pr| pr.call.x << :oops } p f.x # => [1, 2, 3, :oops] ``` If the `self` refers to a shareable object then it's fine, but for non-shareable objects it has to be reset to `nil` or to a global shareable object that would have an instructive `inspect`. ```ruby Ractor::DETACHED_SELF = Object.new def << Ractor::DETACHED_SELF def inspect '<#detached self>' end alias to_s inspect end Ractor::DETACHED_SELF.freeze ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: