7.4 KiB
% misc
This is just a dumping ground while I work out what to do with this stuff
PhantomData
When working with unsafe code, we can often end up in a situation where
types or lifetimes are logically associated with a struct, but not actually
part of a field. This most commonly occurs with lifetimes. For instance, the Iter
for &'a [T] is (approximately) defined as follows:
pub struct Iter<'a, T: 'a> {
ptr: *const T,
end: *const T,
}
However because 'a is unused within the struct's body, it's unbound.
Because of the troubles this has historically caused, unbound lifetimes and
types are illegal in struct definitions. Therefore we must somehow refer
to these types in the body. Correctly doing this is necessary to have
correct variance and drop checking.
We do this using PhantomData, which is a special marker type. PhantomData consumes no space, but simulates a field of the given type for the purpose of static analysis. This was deemed to be less error-prone than explicitly telling the type-system the kind of variance that you want, while also providing other useful information.
Iter logically contains &'a T, so this is exactly what we tell
the PhantomData to simulate:
pub struct Iter<'a, T: 'a> {
ptr: *const T,
end: *const T,
_marker: marker::PhantomData<&'a T>,
}
Dropck
When a type is going out of scope, Rust will try to Drop it. Drop executes arbitrary code, and in fact allows us to "smuggle" arbitrary code execution into many places. As such additional soundness checks (dropck) are necessary to ensure that a type T can be safely instantiated and dropped. It turns out that we really don't need to care about dropck in practice, as it often "just works".
However the one exception is with PhantomData. Given a struct like Vec:
struct Vec<T> {
data: *const T, // *const for variance!
len: usize,
cap: usize,
}
dropck will generously determine that Vec does not own any values of type T. This will unfortunately allow people to construct unsound Drop implementations that access data that has already been dropped. In order to tell dropck that we do own values of type T, and may call destructors of that type, we must add extra PhantomData:
struct Vec<T> {
data: *const T, // *const for covariance!
len: usize,
cap: usize,
_marker: marker::PhantomData<T>,
}
Raw pointers that own an allocation is such a pervasive pattern that the
standard library made a utility for itself called Unique<T> which:
- wraps a
*const T, - includes a
PhantomData<T>, - auto-derives Send/Sync as if T was contained
- marks the pointer as NonZero for the null-pointer optimization
Splitting Lifetimes
The mutual exclusion property of mutable references can be very limiting when working with a composite structure. The borrow checker understands some basic stuff, but will fall over pretty easily. It does understand structs sufficiently to know that it's possible to borrow disjoint fields of a struct simultaneously. So this works today:
struct Foo {
a: i32,
b: i32,
c: i32,
}
let mut x = Foo {a: 0, b: 0, c: 0};
let a = &mut x.a;
let b = &mut x.b;
let c = &x.c;
*b += 1;
let c2 = &x.c;
*a += 10;
println!("{} {} {} {}", a, b, c, c2);
However borrowck doesn't understand arrays or slices in any way, so this doesn't work:
let x = [1, 2, 3];
let a = &mut x[0];
let b = &mut x[1];
println!("{} {}", a, b);
<anon>:3:18: 3:22 error: cannot borrow immutable indexed content `x[..]` as mutable
<anon>:3 let a = &mut x[0];
^~~~
<anon>:4:18: 4:22 error: cannot borrow immutable indexed content `x[..]` as mutable
<anon>:4 let b = &mut x[1];
^~~~
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
While it was plausible that borrowck could understand this simple case, it's pretty clearly hopeless for borrowck to understand disjointness in general container types like a tree, especially if distinct keys actually do map to the same value.
In order to "teach" borrowck that what we're doing is ok, we need to drop down
to unsafe code. For instance, mutable slices expose a split_at_mut function that
consumes the slice and returns two mutable slices. One for everything to the
left of the index, and one for everything to the right. Intuitively we know this
is safe because the slices don't alias. However the implementation requires some
unsafety:
fn split_at_mut(&mut self, mid: usize) -> (&mut [T], &mut [T]) {
unsafe {
let self2: &mut [T] = mem::transmute_copy(&self);
(ops::IndexMut::index_mut(self, ops::RangeTo { end: mid } ),
ops::IndexMut::index_mut(self2, ops::RangeFrom { start: mid } ))
}
}
This is pretty plainly dangerous. We use transmute to duplicate the slice with an unbounded lifetime, so that it can be treated as disjoint from the other until we unify them when we return.
However more subtle is how iterators that yield mutable references work. The iterator trait is defined as follows:
trait Iterator {
type Item;
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item>;
}
Given this definition, Self::Item has no connection to self. This means
that we can call next several times in a row, and hold onto all the results
concurrently. This is perfectly fine for by-value iterators, which have exactly
these semantics. It's also actually fine for shared references, as they admit
arbitrarily many references to the same thing (although the
iterator needs to be a separate object from the thing being shared). But mutable
references make this a mess. At first glance, they might seem completely
incompatible with this API, as it would produce multiple mutable references to
the same object!
However it actually does work, exactly because iterators are one-shot objects. Everything an IterMut yields will be yielded at most once, so we don't actually ever yield multiple mutable references to the same piece of data.
In general all mutable iterators require some unsafe code somewhere, though. Whether it's raw pointers, or safely composing on top of another IterMut.
For instance, VecDeque's IterMut:
pub struct IterMut<'a, T:'a> {
// The whole backing array. Some of these indices are initialized!
ring: &'a mut [T],
tail: usize,
head: usize,
}
impl<'a, T> Iterator for IterMut<'a, T> {
type Item = &'a mut T;
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<&'a mut T> {
if self.tail == self.head {
return None;
}
let tail = self.tail;
self.tail = wrap_index(self.tail.wrapping_add(1), self.ring.len());
unsafe {
// might as well do unchecked indexing since wrap_index has us
// in-bounds, and many of the "middle" indices are uninitialized
// anyway.
let elem = self.ring.get_unchecked_mut(tail);
// round-trip through a raw pointer to unbound the lifetime from
// ourselves
Some(&mut *(elem as *mut _))
}
}
}
A very subtle but interesting detail in this design is that it relies on
privacy to be sound. Borrowck works on some very simple rules. One of those rules
is that if we have a live &mut Foo and Foo contains an &mut Bar, then that &mut
Bar is also live. Since IterMut is always live when next can be called, if
ring were public then we could mutate ring while outstanding mutable borrows
to it exist!