Rust's quest for world domination was never destined to happen overnight, so Rust needs to be able to interoperate with the existing world just as easily as it talks to itself. For this reason, Rust makes it easy to communicate with C APIs without overhead, and to leverage its ownership system to provide much stronger safety guarantees for those APIs at the same time.

To communicate with other languages, Rust provides a foreign function interface (FFI). Following Rust's design principles, the FFI provides a zero-cost abstraction where function calls between Rust and C have identical performance to C function calls. FFI bindings can also leverage language features such as ownership and borrowing to provide a safe interface that enforces protocols around pointers and other resources. These protocols usually appear only in the documentation for C APIs -- at best -- but Rust makes them explicit.

In this post we'll explore how to encapsulate unsafe FFI calls to C in safe, zero-cost abstractions. Working with C is, however, just an example; we'll also see how Rust can easily talk to languages like Python and Ruby just as seamlessly as with C.

Rust talking to C

Let's start with a simple example of calling C code from Rust and then demonstrate that Rust imposes no additional overhead. Here's a C program which will simply double all the input it's given:

int double_input(int input) { return input * 2; }

To call this from Rust, you might write a program like this:

extern crate libc; extern { fn double_input(input: libc::c_int) -> libc::c_int; } fn main() { let input = 4; let output = unsafe { double_input(input) }; println!("{} * 2 = {}", input, output); }

And that's it! You can try this out for yourself by checking out the code on GitHub and running cargo run from that directory. At the source level we can see that there's no burden in calling an external function beyond stating its signature, and we'll see soon that the generated code indeed has no overhead, either. There are, however, a few subtle aspects of this Rust program, so let's cover each piece in detail.

First up we see extern crate libc . The libc crate provides many useful type definitions for FFI bindings when talking with C, and it makes it easy to ensure that both C and Rust agree on the types crossing the language boundary.

This leads us nicely into the next part of the program:

extern { fn double_input(input: libc::c_int) -> libc::c_int; }

In Rust this is a declaration of an externally available function. You can think of this along the lines of a C header file. Here's where the compiler learns about the inputs and outputs of the function, and you can see above that this matches our definition in C. Next up we have the main body of the program:

fn main() { let input = 4; let output = unsafe { double_input(input) }; println!("{} * 2 = {}", input, output); }

We see one of the crucial aspects of FFI in Rust here, the unsafe block. The compiler knows nothing about the implementation of double_input , so it must assume that memory unsafety could happen whenever you call a foreign function. The unsafe block is how the programmer takes responsibility for ensuring safety -- you are promising that the actual call you make will not, in fact, violate memory safety, and thus that Rust's basic guarantees are upheld. This may seem limiting, but Rust has just the right set of tools to allow consumers to not worry about unsafe (more on this in a moment).

Now that we've seen how to call a C function from Rust, let's see if we can verify this claim of zero overhead. Almost all programming languages can call into C one way or another, but it often comes at a cost with runtime type conversions or perhaps some language-runtime juggling. To get a handle on what Rust is doing, let's go straight to the assembly code of the above main function's call to double_input :

mov $0x4,%edi callq 3bc30 <double_input>

And as before, that's it! Here we can see that calling a C function from Rust involves precisely one call instruction after moving the arguments into place, exactly the same cost as it would be in C.

Safe Abstractions

Most features in Rust tie into its core concept of ownership, and the FFI is no exception. When binding a C library in Rust you not only have the benefit of zero overhead, but you are also able to make it safer than C can! Bindings can leverage the ownership and borrowing principles in Rust to codify comments typically found in a C header about how its API should be used.

For example, consider a C library for parsing a tarball. This library will expose functions to read the contents of each file in the tarball, probably something along the lines of:

// Gets the data for a file in the tarball at the given index, returning NULL if // it does not exist. The `size` pointer is filled in with the size of the file // if successful. const char *tarball_file_data(tarball_t *tarball, unsigned index, size_t *size);

This function is implicitly making assumptions about how it can be used, however, by assuming that the char* pointer returned cannot outlive the input tarball. When bound in Rust, this API might look like this instead:

pub struct Tarball { raw: *mut tarball_t } impl Tarball { pub fn file(&self, index: u32) -> Option<&[u8]> { unsafe { let mut size = 0; let data = tarball_file_data(self.raw, index as libc::c_uint, &mut size); if data.is_null() { None } else { Some(slice::from_raw_parts(data as *const u8, size as usize)) } } } }

Here the *mut tarball_t pointer is owned by a Tarball , which is responsible for any destruction and cleanup, so we already have rich knowledge about the lifetime of the tarball's memory. Additionally, the file method returns a borrowed slice whose lifetime is implicitly connected to the lifetime of the source tarball itself (the &self argument). This is Rust's way of indicating that the returned slice can only be used within the lifetime of the tarball, statically preventing dangling pointer bugs that are easy to make when working directly with C. (If you're not familiar with this kind of borrowing in Rust, have a look at Yehuda Katz's blog post on ownership.)

A key aspect of the Rust binding here is that it is a safe function, meaning that callers do not have to use unsafe blocks to invoke it! Although it has an unsafe implementation (due to calling an FFI function), the interface uses borrowing to guarantee that no memory unsafety can occur in any Rust code that uses it. That is, due to Rust's static checking, it's simply not possible to cause a segfault using the API on the Rust side. And don't forget, all of this is coming at zero cost: the raw types in C are representable in Rust with no extra allocations or overhead.

Rust's amazing community has already built some substantial safe bindings around existing C libraries, including OpenSSL, libgit2, libdispatch, libcurl, sdl2, Unix APIs, and libsodium. This list is also growing quite rapidly on crates.io, so your favorite C library may already be bound or will be bound soon!

C talking to Rust

Despite guaranteeing memory safety, Rust does not have a garbage collector or runtime, and one of the benefits of this is that Rust code can be called from C with no setup at all. This means that the zero overhead FFI not only applies when Rust calls into C, but also when C calls into Rust!

Let's take the example above, but reverse the roles of each language. As before, all the code below is available on GitHub. First we'll start off with our Rust code:

#[no_mangle] pub extern fn double_input(input: i32) -> i32 { input * 2 }

As with the Rust code before, there's not a whole lot here but there are some subtle aspects in play. First off, we've labeled our function definition with a #[no_mangle] attribute. This instructs the compiler to not mangle the symbol name for the function double_input . Rust employs name mangling similar to C++ to ensure that libraries do not clash with one another, and this attribute means that you don't have to guess a symbol name like double_input::h485dee7f568bebafeaa from C.

Next we've got our function definition, and the most interesting part about this is the keyword extern . This is a specialized form of specifying the ABI for a function which enables the function to be compatible with a C function call.

Finally, if you take a look at the Cargo.toml you'll see that this library is not compiled as a normal Rust library (rlib) but instead as a static archive which Rust calls a 'staticlib'. This enables all the relevant Rust code to be linked statically into the C program we're about to produce.

Now that we've got our Rust library squared away, let's write our C program which will call Rust.

#include <stdint.h> #include <stdio.h> extern int32_t double_input(int32_t input); int main() { int input = 4; int output = double_input(input); printf("%d * 2 = %d

", input, output); return 0; }

Here we can see that C, like Rust, needs to declare the double_input function that Rust defined. Other than that though everything is ready to go! If you run make from the directory on GitHub you'll see these examples getting compiled and linked together and the final executable should run and print 4 * 2 = 8 .

Rust's lack of a garbage collector and runtime enables this seamless transition from C to Rust. The external C code does not need to perform any setup on Rust's behalf, making the transition that much cheaper.

Beyond C

Up to now we've seen how FFI in Rust has zero overhead and how we can use Rust's concept of ownership to write safe bindings to C libraries. If you're not using C, however, you're still in luck! These features of Rust enable it to also be called from Python, Ruby, JavaScript, and many more languages.

When writing code in these languages, you sometimes want to speed up some component that's performance critical, but in the past this often required dropping all the way to C, and thereby giving up the memory safety, high-level abstractions, and ergonomics of these languages.

The fact that Rust can talk to easily with C, however, means that it is also viable for this sort of usage. One of Rust's first production users, Skylight, was able to improve the performance and memory usage of their data collection agent almost instantly by just using Rust, and the Rust code is all published as a Ruby gem.

Moving from a language like Python and Ruby down to C to optimize performance is often quite difficult as it's tough to ensure that the program won't crash in a difficult-to-debug way. Rust, however, not only brings zero cost FFI, but also makes it possible to retain the same safety guarantees as the original source language. In the long run, this should make it much easier for programmers in these languages to drop down and do some systems programming to squeeze out critical performance when they need it.

FFI is just one of many tools in the toolbox of Rust, but it's a key component to Rust's adoption as it allows Rust to seamlessly integrate with existing code bases today. I'm personally quite excited to see the benefits of Rust reach as many projects as possible!