Add safe-linking goal.

src/2025h1/safe-linking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# Research: How to achieve safety when linking separately compiled code
+
+| Metadata |                                                              |
+| -------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
+| Owner(s) | [Mara Bos](https://github.com/m-ou-se) and [Jonathan Dönszelman](https://github.com/jdonszelmann) |
+| Teams    | [lang], [compiler]                                           |
+| Status   | Proposed                                                     |
+
+## Summary
+
+Research what "safety" and "unsafety" means when dealing with separately compiled code, like when loading dynamically linked libraries.
+Specifically, figure out how it'd be possible to provide any kind of safety when linking external code (such as loading a dynamic library or linking a separately compiled static library).
+
+## Motivation
+
+Rust has a very clear definition of "safe" and "unsafe" and (usually) makes it easy to stay in the "safe" world.
+`unsafe` blocks usually only have to encapsulate very small blocks of which one can (and should) prove soundness manually.
+
+When using `#[no_mangle]` and/or `extern { … }` to connect separately compiled code, however, any concept safety pretty much disappears.
+
+While it might be reasonable to make some assumptions about (standardized) symbols like `strlen`,
+the _unsafe assumption_ that a symbol with the same name will refer to something of the expected signature
+is _not_ something that one can _prove at compile time_, but is rather an (hopeful, perhaps reasonable) expectation of
+the contents of dynamic libraries available at runtime.
+
+The end result is that for use cases like plugins, we have no option than just `unsafe`ly hoping for the best,
+accepting that we cannot perfectly guarantee that undefined behavior is impossible linking/loading a library/a plugin/some external code.
+
+### The status quo
+
+Today, combining separately compiled code (from different Rust projects or different languages)
+is done through a combination of `extern "…" fn`, `#[repr(…)]`, `#[no_mangle]`, and `extern {…}`.
+
+Specifically:
+
+1. `extern "…" fn` (which has a bit of a confusing name) is used to specify the _calling convention_ or _ABI_ of a function.
+
+   The default one is the `"Rust"` ABI, which (purposely) has no stability guarantees.
+   The `"C"` ABI is often used for its stability guarantees, but places restrictions on the possible signatures.
+
+2. `#[repr(…)]` is used to control _memory layout_.
+
+   The default one is the `Rust` layout, which (purposely) has no stability guarantees.
+   The `C` layout is often used for its stability guarantees, but places restrictions on the types.
+
+3. `#[no_mangle]` and `extern {…}` are used to control the _symbols_ used for _linking_.
+
+   `#[no_mangle]` is used for _exporting_ an item under a known symbol,
+   and `extern { … }` is used for _importing_ an item with a known symbol.
+
+There have often been requests for a "stable Rust abi" which usually refers to a _calling convention_ and _memory layout_ that is
+as unrestrictive as `extern "Rust" fn` and `#[repr(Rust)]`, but as stable as `extern "C" fn` and `#[repr(C)]`.
+
+It seems unlikely that `extern "Rust" fn` and `#[repr(Rust)]` would ever come with stablity guarantees, as allowing for changes when stability is not necessary has its benefits.
+It seems most likely that a "stable Rust ABI" will arrive in the form of a _new_ ABI,
+by adding some kind of `extern "Rust-stable-v1"` (and `repr`) or similar
+(such as `extern "crabi" fn` and `#[repr(crabi)]` [proposed here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/105586)),
+or by slowly extending `extern "C" fn` and `#[repr(C)]` to support more types (like tuples and slices, etc.).
+
+Such developments would lift restrictions on which types one can use in FFI, but just a stable calling convention and memory layout will do almost nothing for safety,
+as linking/loading a symbol (possibly at runtime) with a different signature (or ABI) than expected will still immediately lead to undefined behavior.
+
+### Research question and scope
+
+This research project focusses entirely on point 3 above: symbols and linking.
+
+The main research question is:
+
+_**What is necessary for an alternative for `#[no_mangle]` and `extern { … }` to be safe, with a reasonable and usable definition of "safe"?**_
+
+We believe this question can be answered independently of the specifics of a stable calling convention (point 1) and memory layout (point 2).
+
+[RFC3435 "#[export]" for dynamically linked crates](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3435) proposes one possible way to provide safety in dynamic linking.
+The goal of the research is to explore the entire solution space and understand the requirements and limitations that would apply to any possible solution/alternative.
+
+### The next 6 months
+
+- Assemble a small research team (e.g. an MSc student, a professor, and a researcher/mentor).
+- Acquire funding.
+- Run this as an academic research project.
+- Publish intermediate results as a blog post.
+- (After ~9 months) Publish a thesis and possibly a paper that answers the research question.
+
+### The "shiny future" we are working towards
+
+The future we're working towards is one where (dynamically) linking separately compiled code (e.g. plugins, libraries, etc.)
+will feel like a first class Rust feature that is both safe and ergonomic.
+
+Depending on the outcomes of the research, this can provide input and design requirements for future (stable) ABIs, and potentially pave the way for
+safe cross-language linking.
+
+## Design axioms
+
+- Any design is either fully safe, or makes it possible to encapsulate the unsafety in a way that allows one to prove soundness (to reasonable extend).
+- Any design allows for combining code compiled with different versions of the Rust compiler.
+- Any design is usable for statically linking separately (pre) compiled static libraries, dynamically linking/loading libraries, and dynamically loading plugins.
+- Designs require as little assumptions about the calling convention and memory layout.
+  Ideally, the only requirement is that they are stable, which means that the design can be used with the existing `extern "C" fn` and `#[repr(C)]`.
+
+## Ownership and team asks
+
+**Owner:** [Mara Bos](https://github.com/m-ou-se) and/or [Jonathan Dönszelman](https://github.com/jdonszelmann).
+
+| Subgoal                                        | Owner(s) or team(s)     | Notes |
+| ---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ----- |
+| Coordination with university                   | Jonathan                | Delft University of Technology |
+| Acquire funding                                | Hexcat (=Mara+Jonathan) |       |
+| Research                                       | Research team (MSc student, professor, etc.) | |
+| Mentoring and interfacing with Rust project    | Mara, Jonathan          |       |
+| Input and discussion on concept of safety      | ![Team][] [lang]        |       |
+| Blog post (author, review)                     | MSc student, Jonathan, Mara |   |
+| Feedback on conclusions                        | ![Team][] [lang]        | also the Rust community (users) |
+| Experimental implementation                    | Msc student             |       |
+| ↳ Mentoring                                    | Jonathan, Mara          |       |
+| ↳ Review/accept lang experiment                | ![Team][] [lang]        |       |
+| ↳ Reviews/feedback                             | ![Team][] [compiler]    |       |
+| Thesis / Paper                                 | Research team (MSc student, professor, etc.) | |
+
+## Frequently asked questions
+
+### Is there a university and professor interested in this?
+
+Yes! We've discussed this with a professor at the Delft University at Technology, who is excited and already looking for interested students.