gh-157468: Validate correct builtins used under JIT

[johng]

This adds the two checks at tracing and at JIT runtime that the builtin dict is the original interpreter's builtins

• Issue: Tier 2 optimizer may use canonical builtins for functions with a copied __builtins__ dictionary #157468

[cocolato]

Please don't force push PRs. We‘ll squash merge commits at the end. And some comments:

[cocolato]

Thanks for doing this, there are also a few comments

[cocolato]

LGTM, and let's wait a core dev to review this

[markshannon]

We should be able to remove repeated checks in much the same way as do with ctx->frame->globals_checked_version by adding a ctx->frame->builtins_checked flag.

[markshannon]

We always allow enough headroom for small changes like this. No need to check here.

[johng]

I reverted the last commit against my fork and the same test failed so don't think it's related (and didn't seem to be anyway)

1 test failed:
test.test_gdb.test_jit

Edit: Saying that main appears to be in a good state although confused about the failure here

[johng]

The failing test is now passing after latest merge to main @cocolato @markshannon I did some analysis and looks to be related to the code layout generated and whether a veneer is generated. I raised a separate issue above tracking it.

[methane]

Isn't keys->dk_version = 0; needed in clone_combined_dict_keys()? @markshannon

[cocolato]

Isn't keys->dk_version = 0; needed in clone_combined_dict_keys()?

@johng refer: #157468 (comment)
We also need to reset keys->dk_version = 0 here, because a copied globals dict can otherwise pass the original dict’s version guard and reuse its folded constants even after the copy’s values change.

[markshannon]

One small nit, otherwise looks good

[markshannon]

Empty clause. Can you put a /* Do nothing */ comment here for clarity

[bedevere-app]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[markshannon]

Looks good now. Thanks

[miss-islington-app]

Thanks @johng for the PR, and @markshannon for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.15.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[miss-islington-app]

Sorry, @johng and @markshannon, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.15 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.

cherry_picker 0906d2ab93fc9f4c7e0db031c965e7d8a0db7d37 3.15

[johng]

Thanks for the reviews!

[bedevere-bot]

⚠️⚠️⚠️ Buildbot failure ⚠️⚠️⚠️

Hi! The buildbot s390x RHEL9 Refleaks 3.x (tier-3) has failed when building commit 0906d2a.

What do you need to do:

1. Don't panic.
2. Check the buildbot page in the devguide if you don't know what the buildbots are or how they work.
3. Go to the page of the buildbot that failed (https://buildbot.python.org/#/builders/1589/builds/3974) and take a look at the build logs.
4. Check if the failure is related to this commit (0906d2a) or if it is a false positive.
5. If the failure is related to this commit, please, reflect that on the issue and make a new Pull Request with a fix.

You can take a look at the buildbot page here:

https://buildbot.python.org/#/builders/1589/builds/3974

Summary of the results of the build (if available):

==

Click to see traceback logs

Note: switching to '0906d2ab93fc9f4c7e0db031c965e7d8a0db7d37'.

You are in 'detached HEAD' state. You can look around, make experimental
changes and commit them, and you can discard any commits you make in this
state without impacting any branches by switching back to a branch.

If you want to create a new branch to retain commits you create, you may
do so (now or later) by using -c with the switch command. Example:

  git switch -c <new-branch-name>

Or undo this operation with:

  git switch -

Turn off this advice by setting config variable advice.detachedHead to false

HEAD is now at 0906d2ab93f gh-157468: Validate correct builtins used under JIT (GH-157766)
Switched to and reset branch 'main'

Kill <WorkerThread #1 running test=test_regrtest pid=3678827 time=2 min 11 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #3 running test=test.test_concurrent_futures.test_process_pool pid=3655369 time=5 min 16 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #4 running test=test.test_concurrent_futures.test_future pid=3689330 time=3.7 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #5 running test=test.test_multiprocessing_forkserver.test_misc pid=3688887 time=7.2 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #6 running test=test.test_gdb.test_pretty_print pid=3687892 time=19.8 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #7 running test=test_zipfile pid=3673953 time=3 min 5 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #8 running test=test_tarfile pid=3681066 time=1 min 48 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #9 running test=test_imaplib pid=3676017 time=2 min 45 sec> process group
Kill <WorkerThread #10 running test=test_socket pid=3688888 time=7.2 sec> process group
make: *** [Makefile:2487: buildbottest] Error 130

[bedevere-bot]

⚠️⚠️⚠️ Buildbot failure ⚠️⚠️⚠️

Hi! The buildbot AMD64 FreeBSD Refleaks 3.x (tier-3) has failed when building commit 0906d2a.

What do you need to do:

1. Don't panic.
2. Check the buildbot page in the devguide if you don't know what the buildbots are or how they work.
3. Go to the page of the buildbot that failed (https://buildbot.python.org/#/builders/1613/builds/3909) and take a look at the build logs.
4. Check if the failure is related to this commit (0906d2a) or if it is a false positive.
5. If the failure is related to this commit, please, reflect that on the issue and make a new Pull Request with a fix.

You can take a look at the buildbot page here:

https://buildbot.python.org/#/builders/1613/builds/3909

Failed tests:

• test.test_asyncio.test_ssl

Failed subtests:

• test_remote_shutdown_receives_trailing_data - test.test_asyncio.test_ssl.TestSSL.test_remote_shutdown_receives_trailing_data

Summary of the results of the build (if available):

==

Click to see traceback logs

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.opsec-fbsd14.refleak/build/Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_ssl.py", line 1422, in test_remote_shutdown_receives_trailing_data
    self.loop.run_until_complete(client(srv.addr))
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.opsec-fbsd14.refleak/build/Lib/asyncio/base_events.py", line 725, in run_until_complete
    return future.result()
           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^
  File "/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.opsec-fbsd14.refleak/build/Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_ssl.py", line 1406, in client
    await future
  File "/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.opsec-fbsd14.refleak/build/Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_ssl.py", line 1414, in wrapper
    meth(sock)
    ~~~~^^^^^^
  File "/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.opsec-fbsd14.refleak/build/Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_ssl.py", line 1360, in server
    self.assertEqual(data_len, CHUNK * SIZE)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AssertionError: 0 != 4194304