Carefully remove bounds checks from some chunk iterators

1 files changed, 81 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/library/core/src/slice/iter.rs b/library/core/src/slice/iter.rs
index ad1d6b8b846..1b9f64ff215 100644
--- a/library/core/src/slice/iter.rs
+++ b/library/core/src/slice/iter.rs
@@ -1474,7 +1474,24 @@ impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for Chunks<'a, T> {
         } else {
             let remainder = self.v.len() % self.chunk_size;
             let chunksz = if remainder != 0 { remainder } else { self.chunk_size };
-            let (fst, snd) = self.v.split_at(self.v.len() - chunksz);
+            // SAFETY: split_at_unchecked requires the argument be less than or
+            // equal to the length. This is guaranteed, but subtle: We need the
+            // expression `self.v.len() - sz` not to overflow, which means we
+            // need `sz >= tmp_len`.
+            //
+            // `sz` will always either be `self.v.len() % self.chunk_size`,
+            // which will always evaluate to strictly less than `self.v.len()`
+            // (or panic, in the case that `self.chunk_size` is zero), or it can
+            // be `self.chunk_size`, in the case that the length is exactly
+            // divisible by the chunk size.
+            //
+            // While it seems like using `self.chunk_size` in this case could
+            // lead to a value greater than `self.v.len()`, it cannot: if
+            // `self.chunk_size` were greater than `self.v.len()`, then
+            // `self.v.len() % self.chunk_size` would have returned non-zero
+            // (note that in this branch of the `if`, we already know that
+            // `self.v` is non-empty).
+            let (fst, snd) = unsafe { self.v.split_at_unchecked(self.v.len() - chunksz) };
             self.v = fst;
             Some(snd)
         }
@@ -1639,7 +1656,26 @@ impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for ChunksMut<'a, T> {
             let sz = if remainder != 0 { remainder } else { self.chunk_size };
             let tmp = mem::replace(&mut self.v, &mut []);
             let tmp_len = tmp.len();
-            let (head, tail) = tmp.split_at_mut(tmp_len - sz);
+            // SAFETY: split_at_unchecked requires the argument be less than or
+            // equal to the length. This is guaranteed, but subtle: We need the
+            // expression `tmp_len - sz` not to overflow, which means we need
+            // `sz >= tmp_len`.
+            //
+            // `sz` will always either be `tmp_or_v.len() % self.chunk_size`
+            // (where `tmp_or_v` is the slice that at the time was `self.v` but
+            // now is `tmp`, and thus `tmp_len` and `tmp_or_v.len()` are the
+            // same), which will always evaluate to strictly less than
+            // `tmp_or_v.len()` (or panic, in the case that `self.chunk_size` is
+            // zero), or it can be `self.chunk_size`, in the case that the
+            // length is exactly divisible by the chunk size.
+            //
+            // While it seems like using `self.chunk_size` in this case could
+            // lead to a value greater than `tmp_len`, it cannot: if
+            // `self.chunk_size` were greater than `tmp_len`, then
+            // `tmp_or_v.len() % self.chunk_size` would have returned non-zero
+            // (note that in this branch of the `if`, we already know that
+            // `self.v` is non-empty).
+            let (head, tail) = unsafe { tmp.split_at_mut_unchecked(tmp_len - sz) };
             self.v = head;
             Some(tail)
         }
@@ -2409,7 +2445,12 @@ impl<'a, T> Iterator for RChunks<'a, T> {
             None
         } else {
             let chunksz = cmp::min(self.v.len(), self.chunk_size);
-            let (fst, snd) = self.v.split_at(self.v.len() - chunksz);
+            // SAFETY: split_at_unchecked just requires the argument be less
+            // than the length. This could only happen if the expression
+            // `self.v.len() - chunksz` overflows. This could only happen if
+            // `chunksz > self.v.len()`, which is impossible as we initialize it
+            // as the `min` of `self.v.len()` and `self.chunk_size`.
+            let (fst, snd) = unsafe { self.v.split_at_unchecked(self.v.len() - chunksz) };
             self.v = fst;
             Some(snd)
         }
@@ -2483,7 +2524,21 @@ impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for RChunks<'a, T> {
         } else {
             let remainder = self.v.len() % self.chunk_size;
             let chunksz = if remainder != 0 { remainder } else { self.chunk_size };
-            let (fst, snd) = self.v.split_at(chunksz);
+            // SAFETY: split_at_unchecked requires the argument be less than or
+            // equal to the length. This is guaranteed, but subtle: `chunksz`
+            // will always either be `self.v.len() % self.chunk_size`, which
+            // will always evaluate to strictly less than `self.v.len()` (or
+            // panic, in the case that `self.chunk_size` is zero), or it can be
+            // `self.chunk_size`, in the case that the length is exactly
+            // divisible by the chunk size.
+            //
+            // While it seems like using `self.chunk_size` in this case could
+            // lead to a value greater than `self.v.len()`, it cannot: if
+            // `self.chunk_size` were greater than `self.v.len()`, then
+            // `self.v.len() % self.chunk_size` would return nonzero (note that
+            // in this branch of the `if`, we already know that `self.v` is
+            // non-empty).
+            let (fst, snd) = unsafe { self.v.split_at_unchecked(chunksz) };
             self.v = snd;
             Some(fst)
         }
@@ -2569,7 +2624,12 @@ impl<'a, T> Iterator for RChunksMut<'a, T> {
             let sz = cmp::min(self.v.len(), self.chunk_size);
             let tmp = mem::replace(&mut self.v, &mut []);
             let tmp_len = tmp.len();
-            let (head, tail) = tmp.split_at_mut(tmp_len - sz);
+            // SAFETY: split_at_mut_unchecked just requires the argument be less
+            // than the length. This could only happen if the expression
+            // `tmp_len - sz` overflows. This could only happen if `sz >
+            // tmp_len`, which is impossible as we initialize it as the `min` of
+            // `self.v.len()` (e.g. `tmp_len`) and `self.chunk_size`.
+            let (head, tail) = unsafe { tmp.split_at_mut_unchecked(tmp_len - sz) };
             self.v = head;
             Some(tail)
         }
@@ -2647,7 +2707,22 @@ impl<'a, T> DoubleEndedIterator for RChunksMut<'a, T> {
             let remainder = self.v.len() % self.chunk_size;
             let sz = if remainder != 0 { remainder } else { self.chunk_size };
             let tmp = mem::replace(&mut self.v, &mut []);
-            let (head, tail) = tmp.split_at_mut(sz);
+            // SAFETY: split_at_mut_unchecked requires the argument be less than
+            // or equal to the length. This is guaranteed, but subtle: `chunksz`
+            // will always either be `tmp_or_v.len() % self.chunk_size` (where
+            // `tmp_or_v` is the slice that at the time was `self.v` but now is
+            // `tmp`), which will always evaluate to strictly less than
+            // `tmp_or_v.len()` (or panic, in the case that `self.chunk_size` is
+            // zero), or it can be `self.chunk_size`, in the case that the
+            // length is exactly divisible by the chunk size.
+            //
+            // While it seems like using `self.chunk_size` in this case could
+            // lead to a value greater than `tmp_or_v.len()`, it cannot: if
+            // `self.chunk_size` were greater than `tmp_or_v.len()`, then
+            // `tmp_or_v.len() % self.chunk_size` would return nonzero (note
+            // that in this branch of the `if`, we already know that `tmp_or_v`
+            // is non-empty).
+            let (head, tail) = unsafe { tmp.split_at_mut_unchecked(sz) };
             self.v = tail;
             Some(head)
         }