There is a known bug with the borrowck rules that causes it to be overly permissive. The fix is relatively simple but it unfortunately affects some of our Iterator implementations, specifically those iterators that iterate over &mut values. The short version is that while it is possible to expose a safe interface for iterating over &mut values, it is not possible to implement such iterators without an unsafe block.

After giving this quite a bit of thought, I have come to the conclusion that we have three options:

Keep things as they are, but accept that some iterators over mutable references will require unsafe implementations. Split the Iterator trait into Iterator and MutIterator . The latter would only be used for iterating over mutable references. Extend the type-system with higher-order types or integrate theorem provers to prove much higher-level constraints than we can currently reason about. I don’t really consider this to be an option at this point in time, but I will briefly describe the sorts of extensions that might address the problem.

In this post, I’ll explain the problem, describe the possible solutions, and finally dive into some of the longer term implications.

What is the problem?

The iterator trait

To explain the problem, let’s begin by examining the basic iterator trait:

pub trait Iterator<A> { fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<A>; }

next() will be mutating the iterator itself to update the current position and so forth, so it takes an &mut self parameter. I’ve opted to make the lifetime 'n of this pointer explicit, even though it’s not yet necessary, because this lifetime will feature heavily in the discussion to come.

You can see that the iterator trait is parameterized by a type A that indicates the kind of values being iterated over. One of the appealing aspects of the iterator trait is that it is able to encompass both by value iteration (when the type A is something like int ) and by reference iteration (when the type A is something like &T ). This all works great, the problems arise when we extend this same iterator trait to handling mutable references like &mut int . But let’s take it step by step.

An iterator over mutable references

Now, let’s examine how we might implement a mutable iterator over a slice. By “mutable iterator” I mean an iterator that iterates over mutable references into the slice, and thus permits you to modify the contents of the slice in place. For example, one might use a mutable iterator to increment all the elements in a vector like so:

let mut vec = ~[1, 2, 3]; for ref in vec.mut_iter() { *ref += 1; } // vec now equals ~[2, 3, 4];

What follows is a simple implementation of a mutable vector. For the moment, I have omitted the body of the next() method, so you just see the struct declaration and the impl of the Iterator trait. The interface below looks reasonable, but we will see that this interface as specified below is unsafe, and would permit user code to create segfaults. We will also see that (as you would expect, since it can cause segfaults) there is no way to implement this interface without an unsafe block (modulo #8624).

// 'v: lifetime of the vector struct VecMutIterator<'v, T> { data: &'v mut [T], index: uint, } impl<'v, T> Iterator<&'v mut T> for VecMutIterator<'v, T> { // 'n: lifetime of the call to next() fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<&'v mut T> { // Note lifetime of the result: ^~~ .... } }

A mutable iterator holds both a mutable slice (the field data ) and an index into that slice ( index ). On every call to next() , it returns another pointer into that slice. What is crucial in this bit of code is the lifetime of the pointers that get returned from next() . You can see that the lifetime is 'v , which represents the lifetime of the slice (I have highlighted the relevant bit with a comment). Using the lifetime 'v for those returned pointers makes some measure of sense. After all, the pointers are pointers into the slice self.data , and self.data has the lifetime 'v .

The danger arises because of Rust’s rule that mutable references must be unique. In a nutshell, Rust requires that every &mut T pointer must be the only way to mutate the memory it references. This rule ensures memory safety and can also serve other purposes, such as preventing data races (I have in the past waxed philosophical about how those two classes of errors are two sides of the same coin).

The borrow checker is the much loved (or sometimes hated) bit of code tasked with enforcing this rule. To see an example of how the rules work, consider this erroneous snippet of code:

// vec is an array of boxed integers. let mut vec: ~[~int] = ~[~1, ~2, ~3]; // Using an iterator, we create a pointer // `ptr0` that points to the first box in the list, // and then a pointer `int0` that points directly // at the integer in that box. let mut iterator = VecMutIterator { data: vec, index: 0 }; let ptr0: &mut ~int = iterator.next().get(); let int0: &mut int = &mut **ptr0; // Now, we modify the vector so as to replace // the first box. This will cause the original box // to be freed, and would make `int0` a DANGLING POINTER. vec[0] = ~4; // ERROR // Accessing `int0` now could cause a crash: let i = *int0;

Here the user has created an iterator and started iterating over the vector, but then they attempt to mutate the vector and replace its first element. The borrow checker will flag this as an error. Intuitively, what happens is that the capability to mutate the vector is taken from vec and moved into the iterator. Once the iterator goes out of scope, the capability will return to vec, but in the meantime code like vec[0] = ~4 is illegal.

However, a devious user might note that there is another way to create a crash. When creating the iterator, we gave up the capability to access vec , but nowhere did we give up the capability to access the iterator itself. That means that someone could write:

// Same as before: let mut vec: ~[~int] = ~[~1, ~2, ~3]; let mut iterator = VecMutIterator { data: vec, index: 0 }; let ptr0: &mut ~int = iterator.next().get(); let int0: &mut int = &mut **ptr0; // Same EFFECT as before, but expressed differently: iterator.data[0] = ~4;

Thus we see that the VecMutIterator type/impl I showed before is broken. Fundamentally, the problem is that the code did nothing to ensure that the mutable references returned are unique.

What’s interesting is that the iterator protocol itself is fine. That is, so long as we only obtain pointers by invoking next() repeatedly, we will always get a new pointer each time, and hence there is no overlap between the returned values. But because the slice in its entirety is still available, things break down (astute readers may note that this hints at a possible solution, see below).

How would the Rust type system prevent this?

Given that the VecMutIterator type/impl I showed before can be used to create crashes, one would hope then that the Rust type system would prevent you from using such an interface, and in fact it does (or will, once I push the fix for #8624). More specifically, there is no way to implement the body of the next() method without using an unsafe block.

To see how the type system rule works, let’s examine a possible implementation of the Iterator impl for VecMutIterator :

impl<'v, T> Iterator<&'v mut T> for VecMutIterator<'v, T> { // 'n: lifetime of the call to next() fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<&'v mut T> { let index = self.index; self.index += 1; if index < self.length { let ptr: &'v mut T = &mut self.data[index]; // ERROR Some(ptr) } else { None } } }

The code is straight-forward. We save the current index, increment the index field for next time, and then return a pointer into self.data at the saved index.

The type check error occurs when we attempt to create the pointer ptr . The compiler flags this line as erroneous because it cannot guarantee that ptr will be unique for its entire lifetime. Here the lifetime of the pointer is 'v , which means that the compiler must be able to guarantee that for the entirety of 'v nobody will be able to mutate the source of the pointer ( self.data[index] ). The only means that the compiler has of making this guarantee is to prevent access to self.data . The problem is that the lifetime of self is only 'n : that is, the duration of the call to next() . That means that if we prevent you from accessing self again, we could be sure that ptr would be unique for the lifetime 'n , but not the entire lifetime 'v , which might be longer than 'n . Therefore an error is reported.

In order to make this impl type check, the next() function would need to return pointers with the lifetime 'n , not 'v :

impl<'v, T> Iterator<&'v mut T> for VecMutIterator<'v, T> { // Type from trait: ^~~~~~~~~ fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<&'n mut T> { // Required return type: ^~~~~~~~~ ... } }

Of course, this is not possible, because the return type is specified by the Iterator trait to be Option<A> where A is the type parameter supplied to the Iterator trait (in this case, A=&'v mut T ). Moreover, we can’t just change the impl to use the lifetime 'n , because 'n is only in scope on the next() method. In fact, for any given VecMutIterator instance, there isn’t a single lifetime 'n but rather a distinct lifetime 'n for each call to next() , so there is no way we could put 'n into the VecMutIterator type itself.

So what can we do about it?

OK, we’ve now seen that in fact the VecMutIterator implementation I showed you is unsafe and couldn’t be implemented. But we do want to have an iterator over mutable references. So what are our alternatives? In the beginning of the article, I outlined three possibilities, and I want to describe them now in more detail.

Option 1. Use privacy and an unsafe implementation.

Interestingly, the specific impl I showed you is only unsafe if users violate the intended interface. That is, if people only call the next() method, they will always be supplied with a fresh mutable reference each time. Problems arise only when users reach into the iterator itself and create new aliases into the slice that it encapsulates. But we have the means to prevent that: privacy. We could decide the iterator type like so:

// 'v: lifetime of the vector struct VecMutIterator<'v, T> { priv data: &'v mut [T], priv index: uint, }

Using this definition, users of VecMutIterator cannot directly access data , and instead are limited to using the next() method.

Of course, the borrow checker doesn’t understand or consider privacy, so the implementation of next() would still yield type errors. The solution there would be to use unsafe code:

impl<'v, T> Iterator<&'v mut T> for VecMutIterator<'v, T> { fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<&'v mut T> { let index = self.index; self.index += 1; if index < self.length { // Note: the lifetime `'n` is shorter than what we // want, but it's the only thing that the borrow // checker can prove. let ptr: &'n mut T = &mut self.data[index]; // But we know that we never hand out same ref twice, // and there is no alternate means of accessing `self.data`, // so we can cheat and extend the lifetime by fiat: unsafe { Some(unsafe::copy_mut_lifetime(self.data, ptr)) } } else { None } } }

This solution is pragmatic but unsavory. It’s safe and convenient for the user of the interface. It does mean that implementing iterators over mutable references would always require an unsafe keyword (and hence more complex reasoning than normal), unless you are able to build upon another iterator. An example where the latter is sufficient would be the Hashmap type, which stores its data in a vector and hence can utilize VecMutIterator to do the actual traversal.

There is some amount of precedent here. In general, the borrow checker is not smart enough to reason about indices, which means that operations like mut_split have traditionally been defined with a safe interface but unsafe implementation:

impl<T> [T] { fn mut_split<'n>(&'n mut self) -> (&'n mut [T], &'n mut [T]) { // Divides a single `&mut [T]` slice into two disjoint slices, // one covering the left half of the slice and one the right. ... } }

The difference to me between these cases is that the reasoning about whether MutVecIterator is correct is more complex, since it requires thinking not about what might happen in the course of a single function call, but rather over all possible uses of the MutVecIterator struct for its entire lifetime (including unintended uses, as we have seen).

Another consideration is more complex iterators. For example, any iterator trait that did not preserve the invariant that every item is returned exactly once (e.g., Java’s ListIterator , or the RandomAccessIterator ) is just not compatible with mutable references unless it is designed very carefully to limit the lifetime of its return values (rather like the trait I describe in the next section). However, in Rust we mostly we make use of the Iterator and DoubleEndedIterator traits, which only require any given element in the iteration space to be returned once (of course one can have infinite iterators, but one can also choose not to). This is partly a consequence of Rust’s use of affine types, meaning they cannot be aliased and must be moved from place to place (mutable references are of course an example of such a type).

Option 2. Use a different trait for mutable references.

Another option is to create a new trait MutIterator for iterating over mutable references. In this case, the existing trait ( Iterator ) would be used for by-value and by-immutable-ref iteration. What these two cases have in common is that the lifetime of the thing being iterated over is independent from the iterator itself. In contrast, the MutIterator trait would be designed to express that the lifetime of the things you iterate over is linked to the iterator:

trait MutIterator<A> { fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<&'n mut A>; }

Here you can see that the lifetime of the result is always 'n .

This solution permits safe implementations but is less convenient for end users. You can’t write a single function or type that operates over any iterator, but must instead always handle the MutIterator case separately. So things like vec.iter().enumerate() would likely become vec.mut_iter().mut_enumerate() or some such. For better or worse, though, separating out mutability into its own world is quite common in Rust libraries, precisely because of the dangers to safety inherent in mutation, so to some extent this is a natural solution. Also, at least in our compiler and standard libraries, uses of mut_iter() are rather simple and isolated, so having a distinct trait with fewer capabilities would likely pose little problem.

Having a MutIterator trait that is distinct from Iterator would complicate the for loop, since it would not be able to assume that the thing being iterated over must implement Iterator . We could either (1) have a for mut syntax; (2) keep the current “duck-typing” implementation; or maybe (3) try Iterator and then MutIterator . But “try-this-and-then-that” style reasoning interacts poorly with type inference so I’d prefer to avoid it (though we certainly do it at times).

Option 3. Extend the type system.

There are various ways we could extend the type system to resolve this dilemna.

Higher-kinded types. One solution to address the problem of how the type parameter to the Iterator trait can refer to the lifetime 'n that appears below is to add some sort of higher-kinded types. We could redefine the Iterator trait so that it accepts a higher-kinded type parameter. Of course I have no idea what the syntax would look like, but it might be something like:

trait Iterator<A<'n>> { fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<A<'n>>; }

Unlike Haskell, which primarily offers kinds of * for a simple type and * => K for a higher-kinded type, we would add a kind like LT for lifetime. So the kind of A would be LT => * (given a lifetime, you get a simple type).

We could then define the MutVecIterator as something like

impl<'v, T> Iterator<|'n| &'n mut T> for VecMutIterator<'v, T> { fn next<'n>(&'n mut self) -> Option<&'n mut T> { .... } }

Now the type being iterated over is |'n| &'n mut T – I am using || to copy our closure syntax, since this is effectively a function where the parameters and result types are types, not values.

Anyway, there is clearly a fair amount of design work to be done, and not to mention consideration of the ergonomics. The above notations are somewhat intimidating. I also do not think this can be done in a backwards compatible way – that is, the existing VecMutIterator which today requires an unsafe implementation would not be typable. This is because the existing version returns &'v mut T values, but the HKT version would be returning &'n mut T values.

Theorem proving. In principle, we could eventually integrate some kind of optional theorem proving into rustc to enable it to reason about array indices and time more extensively. Such an extension would definitely allow something like split to be proven safe, and would probably allow VecMutIterator as well. But the VecMutIterator proof would require a more extensive integration, since it would require reasoning about privacy etc.

Some considerations

I think the choice is down to (1) unsafe implementations or (2) a distinct MutIterator trait. I honestly don’t know where I fall yet. Here are the primary considerations that I have been pondering.

Safety. To be honest, I am not that concerned about the safety impliciations of requiring unsafe implementations for mutable iterators. Many data structures can just build on vectors and hashtables, and so their iterators would be safe. For the rest, well, data structures in general seem to be a prime place where unsafe code makes sense – they offer constrained, well-specified interfaces; they are widely used and efficiency is paramount; and there is a long history of efficient, novel data structures that the type system could never hope to capture.

Convenience and flexibility. Choosing an unsafe impl but safe interface yields the most convenience for end-users. Not only can you write generic code that operates over all iterators, but the mutable references you iterate over have longer lifetimes than they would in the MutIterator trait approach. For example, the following snippet of code works for the unsafe implementation but not the MutIterator trait:

let mut iter = VecMutIterator { ... }; let ptr0 = iter.next().get(); let ptr1 = iter.next().get(); // ptr0 and ptr1 co-exist now

With a MutIterator , you would not be able to call next() until ptr0 had gone out of scope. With the unsafe impl approach, ptr0 remains in scope as long as the slice that the iterator encapsulated. But traits like RandomAccessIterator cannot be supported, since they would only be safe with a shorter lifetime.

Future proofing. On the other hand, precisely because it is offers a more limited API, I think that the MutIterator trait is more “future-proof”. Choosing MutIterator would ensure that there are no Iterator implementations for mutable references now. If we later extended the type system in some way so as to make such implementations checkable, we could then add iterators for &mut T references in whatever form these extensions permit, and deprecate MutIterator . In particular, if we added HKT, which seems more likely than theorem proving, we could add iterators that only permit iteration over &'n mut T . Such iterators could also support the RandomAccessIterator trait.

Conclusion

I kind of hate it when blog posts or news articles address the reader in the last paragraph, since it generally seems like a rather formulaic and pedestrian way of creating user interaction. But, in this case, it seems like the right way to end the post, so I’ll make an exception: Tell me dear reader, what do you think we should do?