Add native lock speclet

proposals/native-lock.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+# Native lock
+
+## Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Special-case how `System.Threading.Lock` interacts with the `lock` keyword (calling its `EnterLockScope` method under the hood).
+Add static analysis warnings to prevent accidental misuse of the type where possible.
+
+## Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+.NET 9 is introducing a new [`System.Threading.Lock` type](https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/34812)
+as a better alternative to existing monitor-based locking.
+The presence of the `lock` keyword in C# might lead developers to think they can use it with this new type.
+Doing so wouldn't lock according to the semantics of this type but would instead treat it as any other object and would use monitor-based locking.
+
+## Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+Semantics of the lock statement ([§13.13](https://github.com/dotnet/csharpstandard/blob/9af5bdaa7af535f34fbb7923e5406e01db8489f7/standard/statements.md#1313-the-lock-statement))
+are changed to special-case the `System.Threading.Lock` type:
+
+> A `lock` statement of the form `lock (x) { ... }`
+>
+> 1. **where `x` is an expression of type `System.Threading.Lock`, is precisely equivalent to:**
+>    ```cs
+>    using (x.EnterLockScope())
+>    {
+>        ...
+>    }
+>    ```
+>    **and `System.Threading.Lock` must have the following shape:**
+>    ```cs
+>    namespace System.Threading
+>    {
+>        public sealed class Lock
+>        {
+>            public Scope EnterLockScope();
+>    
+>            public ref struct Scope
+>            {
+>                public void Dispose();
+>            }
+>        }
+>    }
+>    ```
+> 2. where `x` is an expression of a *reference_type*, is precisely equivalent to: [...]
+
+Note that the shape might not be fully checked (e.g., there will be no errors nor warnings if the `Lock` type is not `sealed`),
+but the feature might not work as expected (e.g., there will be no warnings when converting `Lock` to a derived type,
+since the feature assumes there are no derived types).
+
+Additionally, new warnings are added to implicit reference conversions ([§10.2.8](https://github.com/dotnet/csharpstandard/blob/9af5bdaa7af535f34fbb7923e5406e01db8489f7/standard/conversions.md#1028-implicit-reference-conversions))
+when upcasting the `System.Threading.Lock` type:
+
+> The implicit reference conversions are:
+>
+> - From any *reference_type* to `object` and `dynamic`.
+>   - **A warning is reported when the *reference_type* is known to be `System.Threading.Lock`.**
+> - From any *class_type* `S` to any *class_type* `T`, provided `S` is derived from `T`.
+>   - **A warning is reported when `S` is known to be `System.Threading.Lock`.**
+> - From any *class_type* `S` to any *interface_type* `T`, provided `S` implements `T`.
+>   - **A warning is reported when `S` is known to be `System.Threading.Lock`.**
+> - [...]
+
+```cs
+object l = new System.Threading.Lock(); // warning
+lock (l) { } // monitor-based locking is used here
+```
+
+Note that this warning occurs even for equivalent explicit conversions.
+To escape out of the warning and force use of monitor-based locking, one can use
+- the usual warning suppression means (`#pragma warning disable`),
+- `Monitor` APIs directly,
+- indirect casting like `object AsObject<T>(T l) => (object)l;`.
+
+## Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+- Support a general pattern that other types can also use to interact with the `lock` keyword.
+  This is a future work that might be implemented when `ref struct`s can participate in generics.
+  Discussed in [LDM 2023-12-04](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2023/LDM-2023-12-04.md#lock-statement-pattern).
+
+- To avoid ambiguity between the existing monitor-based locking and the new `Lock` (or pattern in the future), we could:
+  - Introduce a new syntax instead of reusing the existing `lock` statement.
+  - Require the new lock types to be `struct`s (since the existing `lock` disallows value types).
+    There could be problems with default constructors and copying if the structs have lazy initialization.
+
+- The codegen could be hardened against thread aborts (which are themselves obsoleted).
+
+- We could warn also when `Lock` is passed as a type parameter, because locking on a type parameter always uses monitor-based locking:
+
+  ```cs
+  M(new Lock()); // could warn here
+
+  void M<T>(T x) // (specifying `where T : Lock` makes no difference)
+  {
+      lock (x) { } // because this uses Monitor
+  }
+  ```
+
+  However, that would cause warnings when storing `Lock`s in a list which is undesirable:
+
+  ```cs
+  List<Lock> list = new();
+  list.Add(new Lock()); // would warn here
+  ```
+
+## Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+- Can we allow the new `lock` statement in async methods?
+  Since `await` is disallowed inside the `lock`, this would be safe.
+  Currently, since `lock` is lowered to `using` with a `ref struct` as the resource, this results in a compile-time error.
+  The workaround is to extract the `lock` into a separate non-async method.
+
+## Design meetings
+
+- [LDM 2023-05-01](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2023/LDM-2023-05-01.md#lock-statement-improvements): initial decision to support a `lock` pattern
+- [LDM 2023-10-16](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2023/LDM-2023-10-16.md#lock-statement-pattern): triaged into the working set for .NET 9
+- [LDM 2023-12-04](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2023/LDM-2023-12-04.md#lock-statement-pattern): rejected the general pattern, accepted only special-casing the `Lock` type + adding static analysis warnings