Understanding Memory Safety in Rust
Language Features Ensuring Memory Safety
Over the past decade, Rust has become the preferred choice for those looking to write fast and memory-safe native machine software. While languages like C can operate efficiently at a low hardware level, they lack language features that ensure proper memory allocation and deallocation. As noted by the White House Office of the National Cyber Director recently, these flaws make code vulnerable to attacks. In contrast, languages like Rust have garnered more attention due to their built-in safety mechanisms.
The memory safety of Rust is not provided by libraries or external analysis tools, but is directly embedded in the language. This means that any unsafe operations are blocked at the compilation stage, thus avoiding potential runtime errors. For example, use-after-free errors are syntactically disallowed, so such invalid code cannot compile successfully, let alone enter production. Nevertheless, Rust code is not absolutely infallible; certain runtime issues still require developers to handle them. However, Rust does reduce many common software vulnerabilities.
Default Immutability
All variables in Rust are immutable by default—meaning once assigned, they cannot be changed unless explicitly declared as mutable. This not only makes developers more mindful of which values need to change and when, but also makes the code easier to understand and maintain. In contrast, C++ defaults everything to be mutable, requiring the <span>const</span> keyword to declare immutability. In Rust, all programs adhere to the immutability principle by default, both now and in the future.
Ownership, Borrowing, and References
In Rust, every value has a “owner,” meaning that at any given time, only one entity can have full read and write access to a value. Ownership can be transferred or temporarily “borrowed,” but all of this is strictly tracked by the Rust compiler. Any code that violates ownership rules cannot compile.
Lifetime
Lifetime is the mechanism used in Rust to ensure that references are valid. It guarantees that during program execution, references always point to valid data. This mechanism avoids the problem of dangling pointers without requiring an additional garbage collector, maintaining high performance.
In summary, Rust provides a new way to write high-performance and memory-safe applications through its unique language features and strict compile-time checks. These features not only enhance development efficiency but also reduce security risks caused by improper memory management.
In Rust, references not only have owners but also have a lifetime, which is the specific scope in which the reference is valid. In most cases, the compiler can track these lifetimes, allowing implicit handling in the code. However, in more complex situations, we can explicitly annotate lifetimes. In either case, attempting to access or modify an object beyond its lifetime or outside its “scope” will result in a compilation error. This again demonstrates how Rust prevents a range of dangerous errors from entering production.
The so-called use-after-free errors or “dangling pointers” refer to attempts to access objects that have theoretically been released or are out of scope. Such errors are particularly common in C and C++. The C language has no official mechanism at compile time to enforce object lifetime management. While C++ introduced concepts like “smart pointers” to avoid these issues, they are not implemented by default; they must be chosen to be used. Therefore, language safety relies on individual coding styles or institutional requirements rather than guarantees provided by the language itself.
In contrast, managed languages like Java, C#, or Python delegate the responsibility of memory management to the language’s runtime environment. While this comes at the cost of greater runtime overhead and potentially reduced execution speed, it ensures memory safety. Rust, on the other hand, enforces lifetime rules through compile-time rules before the code runs.
Rust’s memory safety does not come without a cost. The primary and greatest cost is the time required to learn and use the language. Transitioning to a new language is never easy, and even experienced programmers often criticize Rust’s steep learning curve. Mastering Rust’s memory management model takes time and effort, and this is a frequently mentioned topic even among supporters.
C and C++ have a large user base, which is often cited as an advantage. Additionally, a wealth of existing code resources—including libraries and complete applications—can be leveraged. It is understandable that developers tend to use the C language family because there are many tools and other resources surrounding them.
However, over the past decade, with the existence and development of Rust, it has accumulated a wealth of tools, documentation, and user communities, making it easier to get started. The number of third-party libraries, known as “crates,” is also rapidly increasing. While using Rust may require a period of retraining and adaptation, there is almost no lack of corresponding resources or library support for a given task.
Rust’s development has sparked discussions about retrofitting existing languages (such as those lacking memory safety) to adopt memory protection features similar to Rust. Despite ambitious ideas, at worst, these improvements may sacrifice backward compatibility. Rust’s behavior is difficult to introduce into languages that do not use these behaviors without creating a clear divide between old and new code.
But this has not stopped people from trying. Some projects aim to create C or C++ extensions with memory safety and ownership rules. For example, Carbon is a brand new language with migration tools for existing C++ code; Cppfront proposes an alternative syntax for C++ aimed at writing code more safely and conveniently. However, both projects are still in prototype stages; Cppfront is set to release only in March 2024.
What sets Rust apart in the programming world is that its most powerful and significant features—memory safety and compile-time guarantees of that safety—are an inseparable part of the language; they are built-in rather than added later. Although it may initially require developers to put in more effort to engage with these features, the ultimate rewards are well worth it.
Reference Article:
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336661/rust-memory-safety-explained.html
「Click 👇 to Follow」
Like + Share + View to Quickly Improve Programming Skills👇