Repository navigation
[Mono.Android] Enable C# memory-safety rules v2 #13539
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
simonrozsival
wants to merge
5
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
simonrozsival-memory-safety-mono-android
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+591
−207
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
daf0b1a
[java-runtime] Use --release for matching javac language levels
simonrozsival 93467a1
[Mono.Android] Enable C# memory-safety rules v2
simonrozsival e0bf187
[Mono.Android] Preserve UTF-8 constructor caller compatibility
simonrozsival d23cb4f
[generator] Preserve nullable default-interface callbacks
simonrozsival 552df45
[docs] Clarify eventDefaultReturn source-code trust
simonrozsival File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, they can insert a random block of code here?
Is that too "wide open" for developers to do weird things?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes—this is effectively a C# source escape hatch, not a sandbox. The writer inserts the value verbatim after the conditional's
:. A bare statement block isn't the intended input, but there is no expression-only validation: calls can have side effects, and crafted text can inject additional source. Calling it an “expression” didn't make that limitation clear.The input is binding-build metadata (
Transforms/Metadata.xml, or the supplied API XML), not text interpreted from Java callbacks at runtime. ExistingcustomAttributesmetadata also reaches a raw source writer, and binding authors can add hand-written C#. That explains the existing trust model; it does not make arbitrary third-party metadata safe to accept.I kept the hook's behavior and clarified the docs in 552df45: treat this metadata as source code, review third-party inputs accordingly, keep fallbacks small, and implement a listener by hand for complex behavior. Restricting this to constants/parameter names would lose the window-insets fallback's platform-method call; merely parsing an expression wouldn't prevent that call from having side effects.
For an ordinary fallback expression, it runs only when the listener method is called without a handler—not during generation. Invalid generated C# produces normal compiler diagnostics; exceptions follow the ordinary managed/JNI callback path. This commit changes documentation only; callback/nullability/public API/default-return behavior is unchanged.
Auto-replied by the GitHub Copilot app
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a design we could come up with where they WOULDN'T stuff a block of C# code here?!?
Can we suggest using a
partialclass declaration instead?You might check what we'd do for this case currently: