# Coding conventions

One of our major goals with OpenVMM is to provide a high quality coding
experience for contributors, starting first-and-foremost by having a consistent
set of coding conventions in the project.

[Do your part](https://youtu.be/-_7FaWnlhS4?t=10) and keep OpenVMM clean!

## `rustfmt`

_Checked Automatically:_ **Yes** (via [`cargo xtask fmt --pass rustfmt`](../dev_tools/xtask.md))

OpenVMM source must be formatted using
[rustfmt](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt), which automatically and
mechanically applies standard formatting to all the code. This eliminates time
spent discussing or reviewing stylistic issues in pull requests.

The CI will run `rustfmt --check` to enforce consistent formatting, and will
fail if it notices any discrepancies.

Unfortunately, `rustfmt` isn't infinitely customizable, and there are several
rules that are must be manually enforced:

- All lines must end with LF, not CRLF.
- Top-level `use` imports should be non-nested.

```admonish note
Some of these manually-enforced conventions were introduced late into
OpenVMM's development, and there may be chunks of the codebase that do not
adhere to these conventions.

If you're working in a file and notice that it isn't following a certain
convention, please take a moment to fix it!
```

Assuming you've followed the [suggested dev env setup](../getting_started/suggested_dev_env.md)
and set up `rust-analyzer` to format-on-save, you should rarely have to think
about formatting in `.rs` files.

## Custom Lints

_Checked Automatically:_ **Yes** (via [`cargo xtask fmt --pass lints`](../dev_tools/xtask.md))

Custom lints are a set of miscellaneous code lints that are specific to OpenVMM, which
are enforced using a custom in-house tool:

- enforce the presence of the standard Microsoft copyright header
- enforce in-repo crate names don't use '-' in their name (use '_' instead)
- enforce Cargo.toml files don't include autogenerated "see more keys" comments
- enforce Cargo.toml files don't contain author or version fields
- enforce files end with a single trailing newline
- deny usage of `#[repr(packed)]` (you want `#[repr(C, packed)]`)
- justify usage of `cfg(target_arch = ...)` (use `guest_arch` instead!)
- justify usage of `expect(unsafe_code)` with an UNSAFETY comment
- and more!

Some of these lints are self explanatory, whereas others are described in more
detail elsewhere on this page.

## Unused `Cargo.toml` Dependencies

_Checked Automatically:_ **Yes** (via [`cargo xtask fmt --pass unused-deps`](../dev_tools/xtask.md))

We have an in-repo fork of
[`cargo-machete`](https://github.com/bnjbvr/cargo-machete) that ensures
`Cargo.toml` files only include dependencies that are actually being used.

Avoiding unused dependencies makes it easier to reason about what a crate is
doing just by looking at its dependencies, and also helps cut-down on
incremental compile times.

## Formatting (`Cargo.toml`)

_Checked Automatically:_ **No**

When defining dependencies in `Cargo.toml` files, please organize dependencies
into the following groups:

- crate-specific "subcrates"
- crates under vm/
- crates under vm/vmcore/
- crates under support/
- external dependencies

The rationale here is that crates should be grouped according to how related to
how _widely applicable_ they are. i.e: crates from crates.io and support are
widely applicable outside of OpenVMM, whereas crates under vmcore/ only make
sense within the context of OpenVMM, and crate-specific subcrates are - by
definition - only applicable to the crate they are being imported from.

Additionally, we make use of the
[workspace dependencies](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/reference/workspaces.html#the-dependencies-table)
feature to ensure that all our dependencies stay in sync. This requires defining
dependencies in your crate's `Cargo.toml` file and in the project's root `Cargo.toml`.

So, for example:

```toml
[package]
name = "openvmm"

[dependencies]
# crate-specific subcrates
openvmm_core.workspace = true
...

# /vmcore
vmcore.workspace = true
...

# /vm/devices
firmware_uefi_custom_vars.workspace = true
storvsp.workspace = true
...

# /support
guid.workspace = true
inspect.workspace = true
inspect_proto.workspace = true
...

# external dependencies
anyhow.workspace = true
cfg-if.workspace = true
clap.workspace = true
...
```

## Linting (via `clippy`)

_Checked Automatically:_ **Yes**

OpenVMM uses [`cargo clippy`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy) to
supplement rustc's built-in lints.

Assuming you've followed the guide and set up `rust-analyzer` to
[use clippy](../getting_started/suggested_dev_env.md#enabling-clippy), you should see clippy lints
appear inline when working on Rust code.

The CI runs `cargo clippy` on every crate in the repo prior to building the
project, and will fast-fail if it catches any warnings / errors.

### Suppressing Lints

In general, lints should be fixed by modifying the code to satisfy the lint.
However, there are cases where a lint may need to be `expect`'d inline.

In these cases, you _must_ provide a inline comment providing reasonable
justification for the suppressed lint.

e.g:

```rust,ignore
// x86_64-unknown-linux-musl targets have a different type defn for
// `libc::cmsghdr`, hence why these lints are being suppressed.
#[expect(clippy::needless_update, clippy::useless_conversion)]
libc::cmsghdr {
    cmsg_level: libc::SOL_SOCKET,
    cmsg_type: libc::SCM_RIGHTS,
    cmsg_len: (size_of::<libc::cmsghdr>() + size_of_val(fds))
        .try_into()
        .unwrap(),
    ..std::mem::zeroed()
}
```

### OpenVMM's `clippy` Configuration

We stick fairly close to the default set of rustc / clippy lints, though there
are some default lints that we've decided to disabled project wide, and other
non-default lints which we've explicitly opted into.

See the `[workspace.lints]` sections of OpenVMM's root
[`Cargo.toml`](https://github.com/microsoft/openvmm?path=/Cargo.toml)
for a list of globally enabled/disabled lints, along with justification as to
why certain lints have been enabled/disabled.

## Unsafe Code Policy

```admonish danger
When possible, try to avoid introducing new `unsafe` code!

Before rolling your own `unsafe` code, check to see if a safe abstraction
already exists, either in-tree, on crates.io\*, or in the standard library.

\*subject to an unsafe-code audit
```

Rather than synthesizing our own unsafe code conventions, we follow the
guidelines outlined in the following two resources:

- [The Rust `unsafe` docs](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/keyword.unsafe.html)
- [The Fuchsia "Unsafe code in Rust" Guidelines](https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/fuchsia/+/refs/heads/main/docs/development/languages/rust/unsafe.md)

In a nutshell:

- `unsafe` functions are required to include `/// # Safety` documentation
  describing any preconditions the caller must uphold when calling the function.
- `unsafe {}` blocks are required to include a `// SAFETY:` comment describing
  how the preconditions for calling the `unsafe` function(s) within the block
  are being satisfied.
- `expect(unsafe_code)` annotations are required to include an `// UNSAFETY:`
  comment justifying why the code in question needs to use `unsafe`. This
  annotation must be placed at the module or crate level.

These requirements are enforced by CI, and will cause the build to fail if
required documentation is missing.

Editing a file containing unsafe code will trigger CI to label your PR and warn
reviewers that the PR touches unsafe code. This is to ensure that all unsafe code
is audited for correctness by area experts.

## Uses of `cfg(target_arch = ...)` must be justified

_Checked Automatically:_ **Yes** (via [`cargo xtask fmt --pass lints`](../dev_tools/xtask.md))

Unless you're working on something that's genuinely tied to the host's CPU
architecture, you should use `cfg(guest_arch = ...)` instead of `cfg(target_arch = ...)`.

OpenVMM is a multi-architecture VMM framework, capable of running running x64
guests on a x64 host, as well as Aarch64 guests on Aarch64 hosts (with the
potential of adding additional platforms in the future).

At the moment, OpenVMM requires that the host architecture and guest
architecture match. That said, it's possible that at some point in the future,
OpenVMM may also support _mismatched_ guest/host architectures, via an emulated
CPU virtualization backend (akin to QEMU).

Having an emulated CPU backend would enable OpenVMM to support such useful
scenarios as:

- running Arch64 guests on x86 machines
- running x86 guests on ARM
- running something exotic (e.g: RISC-V) on x86/ARM machines
  - ...assuming we had the bandwidth to implement + maintain something like that
- running OpenVMM on systems without hardware-accelerated CPU virtualization enabled

With these scenarios in mind, it would be short-sighted to rely entirely on
`cfg(target_arch = ...)` to gate guest-facing arch-specific functionality, as it
would inexorably tie the guest's arch to the host's arch, making any future
initiatives to pry the two apart significantly more difficult!

As such, the `OpenVMM` repo includes infrastructure to specify a custom,
OpenVMM-specific `cfg(guest_arch = ...)` cfg parameter.

By default, `cfg(guest_arch = ...)` will act the same way as `cfg(target_arch =
...)`,  but it can be swapped to a different architecture by setting the
`OPENVMM_GUEST_TARGET` env var at compile-time.

There are very few reasons to use `cfg(target_arch = ...)` within the OpenVMM
repo, and to enforce this rule, we have an in-house `xtask fmt --pass lints`
check that lints each use of `cfg(target_arch = ...)` to include a
"justification" for why it's being used.

e.g: `cfg(target_arch = ...)` would be applicable when feature-gating a CPU
intrinsic (such as CPUID, or a SIMD instruction), or when implementing a
`*-sys` crate where the underlying C API/ABI varies between architectures.

...otherwise, use `cfg(guest_arch = ...)`!

## Avoid `Default` when using `zerocopy::FromZeros`

_Checked Automatically:_ **No**

The rule:

- A type can `derive(Default)` **XOR** `derive(FromZeros)`.
- A type that is `FromZeros` can also `impl Default`, but it must be a
  conscious, explicit choice, with justification (read: inline comment) as to
  why that particular default value was chosen.
- N.B. `derive(IntoBytes)` or `derive(FromBytes)` imply `derive(FromZeros)`. That is:
  this convention applies to those types as well.

The why:

- The all-zero type is often not a semantically valid `Default` value for a type
- There are plenty of types that don't have a `Default` value, but _do_ have a
  valid all-zero repr

### Additional context

As per the Rust docs for [`Default::default`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/default/trait.Default.html#tymethod.default):

```admonish quote
`fn default() -> Self`

Returns the “default value” for a type.

Default values are often some kind of initial value, identity value, or anything
else that may make sense as a default.
```

Notably, **default should _not_ be used as some shorthand to "zero initialize"
values!** For most non-trivial structs, the all-zero representation is _not_ a
semantically valid `Default`!

This is true in many contexts... but one that's particularly relevant in OpenVMM
is that of FFI via C-style APIs and ABIs.

In C, it's very common for types to undergo multi-stage instantiation, where
they are initially allocated as all-zero, and then get "filled in" by some
secondary init code. Notably: it's quite rare for that initial "all-zero" struct
to be a valid instance of the type!

#### Example: C FFI

For example, a common pattern in C libraries might look something like:

```c
struct Handle {
    uint16_t opaque_handle;
}

struct Handle handle = {0};
init_handle(&handle);

update_handle(handle, options);
do_thing(handle);
```

In this example: it would be an error to invoke `update_handle` or `do_thing`
with an all-zero handle, as the type hadn't finished being fully initialized.

If we wanted to use this library from Rust, a "naive" approach would be to do
something like:

```rust,ignore
#[repr(C)]
#[derive(Default)]
struct Handle {
    opaque_handle: u16,
}

let mut handle = Handle::default(); // BAD!
unsafe { init_handle(&handle) };

unsafe { update_handle(handle, options) };
unsafe { do_thing(handle) };
```

While this _technically_ works... using `Default` here is kinda bogus!

After all - `Handle::default()` doesn't actually call `init_handle`, which means
the value returned by `default()` doesn't match the "promise" of the trait!
Namely: the returned value is not semantically valid yet!

In many other Rust codebase, this "overloading" of `Default` to represent both
semantically valid value _and_ all-zero values (in FFI) is par for the course,
as once structs get more complicated, having a `derive` that is able to fully
init a "uninitialized" struct in-memory is quite handy...

In OpenVMM, we don't do this. Instead, we use a separate trait to init all-zero
structs.

**In OpenVMM, we use `FromZeros` and `FromZeros::new_zeroed()` to work with types
that have valid all-zero representations, _without_ implying that those types
also have valid all-zero _default_ values!**

So, for the example above:

```rust,ignore
#[repr(C)]
#[derive(zerocopy::FromZeros)]
struct Handle {
    opaque_handle: u16
}

let mut handle = Handle::new_zeroed(); // GOOD!
unsafe { init_handle(&handle) };
```

Now, it's impossible for code elsewhere to obtain a `Handle` via
`Handle::default`, and mistakenly forget to invoke `init_handle` on it.

...but if it so happens that we _do_ want a `Default` impl for `Handle`, we can
do so by _manually_ implementing `derive(Default)` ourselves:

```rust,ignore
// Default + FromZeros: `default` returns fully initialized handle
impl Default for Handle {
    fn default() -> Handle {
        let mut handle = Handle::new_zeroed();
        unsafe { init_handle(&handle) };
        handle
    }
}
```

## Avoid Requiring `Debug` on Traits

_Checked Automatically:_ **No**

**TL;DR:** Don't do this:

```rust,ignore
trait MyTrait: std::fmt::Debug
```

Implementations of the standard library's `Debug` trait can be surprisingly large,
and the final binary size of OpenHCL and related binaries is a major concern
for us. Unused implementations of this trait are usually removed during the
optimization process (like all dead code), making this a non-issue. However when
traits, and more specifically trait objects, are involved, the compiler has a
much more difficult time proving that implementations are unused. This can
result in large amounts of functionally dead code ending up in the final
binaries.

If you need to implement `Debug` for a struct containing such a trait object, you
will need to do so manually, so that you can skip over that field.

Moreover, it's usually not good form to leave tracing statements that log a
struct's `Debug` representation in production. Prefer tracing just the fields
you're interested in, and/or connecting objects to the `Inspect` graph.

## Crate Naming

_Checked Automatically:_ **Yes** (via [`cargo xtask fmt --pass lints`](../dev_tools/xtask.md))

**Crates must be named with underscores, not dashes and underscores used in
folder names.**

- Bad: `my-cool-crate`
- Good: `my_cool_crate`

Rust does not allow dashes in imports, with any dashes getting replaced with
underscores when used in the code. Avoiding dashes altogether makes it easier to
grep for crate names, and makes things more consistent across the repo.

This convention is enforced by CI

**Do not name crates with the words "base, util, common" or other terms that are
overly general.**

For example, consider a crate that provides a common data structure used by
multiple devices:

- Bad: `devices_common`
- Good: `range_map`

Libraries that contain the following eventually become a mishmash of unrelated
functionality that is located there for convenience. This
[blog post](https://dave.cheney.net/2019/01/08/avoid-package-names-like-base-util-or-common)
goes more in-depth as to why.

Instead, name things based on what they logically provide, like functionality or
data types.

## Release Gates Workflow

_Triggered Manually:_ **Yes** (via GitHub labels)

In addition to the standard PR gates that run in debug mode, OpenVMM also provides
a "Release Gates" workflow that runs the same checks but compiled in release mode.
This workflow takes significantly longer to run but can catch issues that only
manifest in optimized builds.

### When to Use Release Gates

The release gates workflow should be used when:

- Making changes to performance-critical code paths
- Modifying compiler flags or build configuration
- Implementing low-level optimizations
- Debugging issues that only appear in release builds
- Before merging large refactoring changes

### How to Trigger Release Gates

To run the release gates on your PR:

1. Ensure your PR is ready for review (not in draft mode)
2. Add the `release-ci-required` label to your PR
3. The workflow will automatically trigger and run all checks in release mode

The workflow will only run when the specific label is present, so you have full
control over when to use this more resource-intensive testing.

### Label Management

Only repository maintainers can add labels to PRs. If you need release gates
run on your PR, ask a maintainer to add the `release-ci-required` label for you.
