Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

Research lightweight handling of panicking wakers

Cerrado
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#342 3 comentarios 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
25/100
Tipo de issue
Nueva funcionalidad
Claridad
Necesita aclaración
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
rust
Área
backend

Línea de trabajo

Start by reading issues #341 and #335 to understand the current non-panicking contract and the complexity that was removed. Compare the linked Tokio, thingbuf, event-listener, embassy-sync, and asupersync approaches, then produce a small prototype with targeted validation. Done means an evidence-backed proposal or documented conclusion that preserves ownership and unwind safety without adding dependencies or complicating the normal path.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

help wanted

Motivation

Follow-up to #341, with the earlier discussion in #335. Asyncband currently expects executor waker operations to be non-panicking and does not promise recovery from panicking waker operations. Removing the previous recovery machinery made notification and permit-distribution paths substantially easier to follow.

A wake callback can still panic after a batch of waiters has been detached, interrupting the remaining notifications. Investigate whether we can attempt those remaining wakes with a small, clear implementation, without restoring the complexity removed in #341.

Research questions

  • Which real-world executor or custom-waker scenarios benefit from recovery, and what behavior should callers observe after catching the panic?
  • Can an ownership or RAII-based approach provide useful recovery? Distinguish cleaning up remaining wakers from actually waking them, and account for a later wake also panicking or cleanup running during an existing unwind.
  • What state must be committed before invoking callbacks, especially for permit distribution and cancellation handoff?
  • Where should the recovery boundary be? Focus on wake and wake_by_ref; assess clone and drop where they affect the proposed approach, rather than assuming that every waker operation needs a general recovery framework.
  • What are the costs in code complexity, allocation, and the normal notification path?

Existing examples

The initial source review found several different policies rather than one ecosystem-wide convention:

  • Tokio 1.53.1 WakeList uses a drop guard to destroy remaining wakers after a wake panic; it does not attempt the remaining wakes. Its internal AtomicWaker separately restores registration state after a clone panic.
  • thingbuf 0.1.6 WaitCell follows Tokio's registration-recovery strategy, while its batch queue notifications directly invoke callbacks.
  • event-listener 5.4.2 directly invokes wake callbacks in its notification loop, without per-callback panic isolation. async-lock, async-channel, and async-broadcast build on this notification mechanism.
  • embassy-sync 0.8.0 MultiWakerRegistration clears the stored length before waking to preserve memory safety during unwinding; a panic stops the loop and can leak the remaining wakers.
  • asupersync 0.5.0 Notify catches each wake panic, retains the first payload, attempts the remaining wakes, and then resumes the first panic. This is a concrete comparison point for the stronger behavior and its implementation cost.

Desired outcome

An evidence-backed proposal with a small prototype and targeted validation, or a documented conclusion explaining why the available approaches do not justify their complexity. Keep callbacks and replaced or cancelled waker destruction outside primitive locks, preserve basic ownership and unwind safety, introduce no new dependencies, and keep the normal path simple.

A successful approach is intended to be a non-breaking robustness improvement under the contract established by #341. Broader guarantees for arbitrary panicking waker operations should be justified separately.

Lenguaje dominante
Rust
Estrellas
274
Forks
42
Merge medio
20 h 18 min
PR fusionados (30 d)
55

Preparar el entorno

Este proyecto no incluye contenedor de desarrollo, Dockerfile ni guía de contribución, así que la configuración corre por tu cuenta: empieza por su README y consulta nuestra guía para la primera contribución para los pasos generales.

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de apache/asyncband

Todos los issues de apache/asyncband

Issues similares

Más issues de Rust

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.