In every talk I have given till now, the question “how does Rust achieve thread safety?” has invariably come up1. I usually just give an overview, but this provides a more comprehensive explanation for those who are interested

See also: Huon’s blog post on the same topic

In my previous post I touched a bit on the Copy trait. There are other such “marker” traits in the standard library, and the ones relevant to this discussion are Send and Sync . I recommend reading that post if you’re not familiar with Rust wrapper types like RefCell and Rc , since I’ll be using them as examples throughout this post; but the concepts explained here are largely independent.

For the purposes of this post, I’ll restrict thread safety to mean no data races or cross-thread dangling pointers. Rust doesn’t aim to solve race conditions. However, there are projects which utilize the type system to provide some form of extra safety, for example rust- sessions attempts to provide protocol safety using session types.

These traits are auto-implemented using a feature called “opt in builtin traits”. So, for example, if struct Foo contains only Sync fields, it will also be Sync , unless we explicitly opt out using impl !Sync for Foo {} . Similarly, if struct Foo contains at least one non- Sync type, it will not be Sync either, unless it explicitly opts in ( unsafe impl Sync for Foo {} )

This means that, for example, a Sender for a Send type is itself Send , but a Sender for a non- Send type will not be Send . This pattern is quite powerful; it lets one use channels with non-threadsafe data in a single-threaded context without requiring a separate “single threaded” channel abstraction.

At the same time, structs like Rc and RefCell which contain Send / Sync fields have explicitly opted out of one or more of these because the invariants they rely on do not hold in threaded situations.

It’s actually possible to design your own library with comparable thread safety guarantees outside of the compiler — while these marker traits are specially treated by the compiler, the special treatment is not necessary for their working. Any two opt-in builtin traits could be used here.

Send and Sync have slightly differing meanings, but are very intertwined.

Send types can be moved between threads without an issue. It answers the question “if this variable were moved to another thread, would it still be valid for use?”. Most objects which completely own their contained data qualify here. Notably, Rc doesn’t (since it is shared ownership). Another exception is LocalKey , which does own its data but isn’t valid from other threads. Borrowed data does qualify to be Send , but in most cases it can’t be sent across threads due to a constraint that will be touched upon later.

Even though types like RefCell use non-atomic reference counting, it can be sent safely between threads because this is a transfer of ownership (a move). Sending a RefCell to another thread will be a move and will make it unusable from the original thread; so this is fine.

Sync , on the other hand, is about synchronous access. It answers the question: “if multiple threads were all trying to access this data, would it be safe?”. Types like Mutex and other lock/atomic based types implement this, along with primitive types. Things containing pointers generally are not Sync .

Sync is sort of a crutch to Send ; it helps make other types Send when sharing is involved. For example, &T and Arc<T> are only Send when the inner data is Sync (there’s an additional Send bound in the case of Arc<T> ). In words, stuff that has shared/borrowed ownership can be sent to another thread if the shared/borrowed data is synchronous-safe.

RefCell , while Send , is not Sync because of the non atomic reference counting.

Bringing it together, the gatekeeper for all this is thread::spawn() . It has the signature

1 pub fn spawn < F , T > ( f : F ) -> JoinHandle < T > where F : FnOnce () -> T , F : Send + 'static , T : Send + 'static

Admittedly, this is confusing/noisy, partially because it’s allowed to return a value, and also because it returns a handle from which we can block on a thread join. We can conjure a simpler spawn API for our needs though:

1 pub fn spawn < F > ( f : F ) where F : FnOnce (), F : Send + 'static

which can be called like:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 let mut x = vec ! [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]; // `move` instructs the closure to move out of its environment thread :: spawn ( move || { x . push ( 1 ); }); // x is not accessible here since it was moved

In words, spawn() will take a callable (usually a closure) that will be called once, and contains data which is Send and 'static . Here, 'static just means that there is no borrowed data contained in the closure. This is the aforementioned constraint that prevents the sharing of borrowed data across threads; without it we would be able to send a borrowed pointer to a thread that could easily outlive the borrow, causing safety issues.

There’s a slight nuance here about the closures — closures can capture outer variables, but by default they do so by-reference (hence the move keyword). They autoimplement Send and Sync depending on their capture clauses. For more on their internal representation, see huon’s post. In this case, x was captured by-move; i.e. as Vec<T> (instead of being similar to &Vec<T> or something), so the closure itself can be Send . Without the move keyword, the closure would not be `‘static’ since it contains borrowed content.

Since the closure inherits the Send / Sync / 'static -ness of its captured data, a closure capturing data of the correct type will satisfy the F: Send+'static bound.

Some examples of things that are allowed and not allowed by this function (for the type of x ):

Vec<T> , Box<T> are allowed because they are Send and 'static (when the inner type is of the same kind)

, are allowed because they are and (when the inner type is of the same kind) &T isn’t allowed because it’s not 'static . This is good, because borrows should have a statically-known lifetime. Sending a borrowed pointer to a thread may lead to a use after free, or otherwise break aliasing rules.

isn’t allowed because it’s not . This is good, because borrows should have a statically-known lifetime. Sending a borrowed pointer to a thread may lead to a use after free, or otherwise break aliasing rules. Rc<T> isn’t Send , so it isn’t allowed. We could have some other Rc<T> s hanging around, and end up with a data race on the refcount.

isn’t , so it isn’t allowed. We could have some other s hanging around, and end up with a data race on the refcount. Arc<Vec<u32>> is allowed ( Vec<T> is Send and Sync if the inner type is); we can’t cause a safety violation here. Iterator invalidation requires mutation, and Arc<T> doesn’t provide this by default.

is allowed ( is and if the inner type is); we can’t cause a safety violation here. Iterator invalidation requires mutation, and doesn’t provide this by default. Arc<Cell<T>> isn’t allowed. Cell<T> provides copying-based internal mutability, and isn’t Sync (so the Arc<Cell<T>> isn’t Send ). If this were allowed, we could have cases where larger structs are getting written to from different threads simultaneously resulting in some random mishmash of the two. In other words, a data race.

isn’t allowed. provides copying-based internal mutability, and isn’t (so the isn’t ). If this were allowed, we could have cases where larger structs are getting written to from different threads simultaneously resulting in some random mishmash of the two. In other words, a data race. Arc<Mutex<T>> or Arc<RwLock<T>> are allowed (for Send T ). The inner types use threadsafe locks and provide lock-based internal mutability. They can guarantee that only one thread is writing to them at any point in time. For this reason, the mutexes are Sync regardless of the inner T (as long as it is Send ), and Sync types can be shared safely with wrappers like Arc . From the point of view of the inner type, it’s only being accessed by one thread at a time (slightly more complex in the case of RwLock ), so it doesn’t need to know about the threads involved. There can’t be data races when Sync types like these are involved.

As mentioned before, you can in fact create a Sender / Receiver pair of non- Send objects. This sounds a bit counterintuitive — shouldn’t we be only sending values which are Send ? However, Sender<T> is only Send if T is Send ; so even if we can use a Sender of a non- Send type, we cannot send it to another thread, so it cannot be used to violate thread safety.

There is also a way to utilize the Send -ness of &T (which is not 'static ) for some Sync T , namely thread::scoped . This function does not have the 'static bound, but it instead has an RAII guard which forces a join before the borrow ends. This allows for easy fork-join parallelism without necessarily needing a Mutex . Sadly, there are problems which crop up when this interacts with Rc cycles, so the API is currently unstable and will be redesigned. This is not a problem with the language design or the design of Send / Sync , rather it is a perfect storm of small design inconsistencies in the libraries.