by David Tolnay , 2019.10.01

Rust's ownership and borrowing system involves the use of references to operate on borrowed data, and the type system distinguishes two different fundamental reference types. In code they are spelled &T and &mut T .

&mut T is commonly known as a "mutable reference" to data of type T . By juxtaposition, &T is then an "immutable reference" or "const reference" to T . These names are fine and reasonably intuitive for Rust beginners, but this article lays out the motivation for preferring the names "shared reference" and "exclusive reference" as you grow beyond the beginner stage and get into library design and some more advanced aspects of the language.

As described in the References and Borrowing chapter of the Rust Book, a function that takes an argument by immutable reference is allowed to read the data behind the reference:

struct Point { x : u32 , y : u32 , } fn print_point ( pt : & Point ) { println ! ( "x={} y={}" , pt . x , pt . y ); }

but is not allowed to mutate that data:

ⓘ This example deliberately fails to compile

fn embiggen_x ( pt : & Point ) { pt . x = pt . x * 2 ; }

error[E0594]: cannot assign to `pt.x` which is behind a `&` reference --> src/main.rs | 1 | fn embiggen_x(pt: &Point) { | ------ help: consider changing this to be a mutable reference: `&mut Point` 2 | pt.x = pt.x * 2; | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `pt` is a `&` reference, so the data it refers to cannot be written

In order to mutate fields of a struct, or call mutating methods such as appending to a vector, the argument must be taken by &mut reference.

fn embiggen_x ( pt : & mut Point ) { pt . x = pt . x * 2 ; }

This distinction, and the terminology of "immutable reference" and "mutable reference", is typically adequate for writing one's first few toy programs with Rust.

Sooner or later you will encounter a library signature that flatly contradicts the beginner's mental model of Rust references. Let's take a look at the store method of AtomicU32 from the standard library as one example of this. The signature is:

impl AtomicU32 { pub fn store ( & self , val : u32 , order : Ordering ); }

You give it a u32 value, and it atomically changes the number inside the AtomicU32 to hold the value you gave. We might call the store method as:

static COUNTER : AtomicU32 = AtomicU32 :: new ( 0 ); fn reset () { COUNTER . store ( 0 , Ordering :: SeqCst ); }

The Ordering parameter can be ignored for the purpose of this discussion; it has to do with the C11 memory model for atomic operations.

But the fact that AtomicU32::store takes self by immutable reference should feel deeply uncomfortable under the beginner's mental model. Sure the mutation is done atomically, but how can it be correct that we mutate something under an immutable reference? Is this a typo in the standard library? If intentional, it certainly feels hacky, or even dangerous. How is this method safe? How is it not undefined behavior?

For former C++ programmers it calls to mind certain abuses of const_cast in C++, where maybe the author was never really sure whether they were violating some esoteric language law that would break the behavior of the code later on, even if it currently appears to work.

Certainly in C++ the atomic mutation methods like std::atomic<T>::store all act on mutable references only. Storing through a const reference to a C++ atomic won't compile, as one should expect.

// C++ #include <atomic> void test(const std::atomic<unsigned>& val) { val.store(0); }

test.cc:4:7: error: no matching member function for call to 'store' val.store(0); ~~~~^~~~~ /usr/include/c++/5.4.0/bits/atomic_base.h:367:7: note: candidate function not viable: no known conversion from 'const std::atomic<unsigned int>' to 'std::__atomic_base<unsigned int>' for object argument store(__int_type __i, memory_order __m = memory_order_seq_cst) noexcept ^ /usr/include/c++/5.4.0/bits/atomic_base.h:378:7: note: candidate function not viable: no known conversion from 'const std::atomic<unsigned int>' to 'volatile std::__atomic_base<unsigned int>' for object argument store(__int_type __i, ^

Something is wrong. It turns out to be the beginner's understanding of what the Rust & and &mut reference types mean.

&T is not an "immutable reference" or "const reference" to data of type T — it is a "shared reference". And &mut T is not a "mutable reference" — it is an "exclusive reference".

An exclusive reference means that no other reference to the same value could possibly exist at the same time. A shared reference means that other references to the same value might exist, possibly on other threads (if T implements Sync ) or the caller's stack frame on the current thread. Guaranteeing that exclusive references really are exclusive is one of the key roles of the Rust borrow checker.

Let's stare at the signature of AtomicU32::store again.

impl AtomicU32 { pub fn store ( & self , val : u32 , order : Ordering ); }

This time it should feel totally natural that this function takes the atomic u32 by shared reference. Of course this function is fine with other references to the same AtomicU32 existing at the same time. The whole point of atomics is allowing concurrent loads and stores without inducing a data race. If the library refused to allow other references to exist during the call to store , there would hardly be a point to doing it atomically.

The reason exclusive references always behave as mutable is because if no other code is looking at the same data, we won't cause a data race by mutating it care-free. A data race is when data is operated on from two or more places at the same time and at least one is mutating, producing unspecifiable results or memory unsafety. But via atomics or other forms of interior mutability discussed below, mutating through a shared reference can be safe too.

Fully internalizing the terminology "shared reference" and "exclusive reference", learning to think in terms of them, is an important milestone in learning to make the most of Rust and its tremendous safety guarantees.

I don't think it is bad for & and &mut to be introduced at first as immutable vs mutable references. The learning curve is difficult enough without frontloading the content of this article. As far as a beginner would be concerned, ability to mutate will be the most significant practical difference between the two reference types.

What I would like to accomplish with this page is to establish that shifting from the "immutable reference"/"mutable reference" mental model to the "shared reference"/"exclusive reference" mental model is a necessary step that learners should be encouraged to take at the right time, and for this page to help them take it. A good time to link someone to this page is when they are first surprised or confused by some library function taking & when they would expect it to require &mut .

After someone has internalized references as being about shared vs exclusive access, I think it is fine to continue saying "mutable reference" as a convenience since the keyword is mut after all; just keep in mind that data behind a shared reference may also be mutable sometimes. On the other hand for shared references I would recommend to always think and say "shared reference" rather than "immutable reference" or "const reference".

The term for safe APIs that support mutation through a shared reference in Rust is "interior mutability".

I used AtomicU32 as an example above because I find that it evokes the most striking rift between deeply-uncomfortable and totally-natural as you shift from the beginner's mental model to the correct one. While atomics are an important building block for multithreaded code, interior mutability is equally relevant on a single thread as well.

The standard library type UnsafeCell<T> is the only way to hold data that is mutable through a shared reference. This is an unsafe low-level building block that we would almost never use directly. All other interior mutability is built as safe abstractions around an UnsafeCell , with a variety of properties and requirements as appropriate to different use cases. (Fundamentally Rust is a language for building safe abstractions, and this is one of the areas where that is most apparent.)

Beyond atomics, other safe abstractions in the standard library built on interior mutability include: