Recently, a new API for “pinned references” has landed as a new unstable feature in the standard library. The purpose of these references is to express that the data at the memory it points to will not, ever, be moved elsewhere. @withoutboats has written about how this solves a problem in the context of async IO. In this post, we take a closer, more formal look at that API: We are going to take a stab at extending the RustBelt model of types with support for pinning.
But before we get started, I have to lay down some basics.
Rust types: Recap
I have discussed my model of Rust types in a previous post; this may me a good time to read that post as I will be using it as a starting point. The short version is that I view Rust types with private invariants as not having just a single invariant, but different invariants that reflect the different “modes” the type can be in. @cramertj suggested to use “typestate” as terminology here, and I agree that this makes sense.
Definition 1: Rust types. Every Rust type
Tcomes with two typestates, each having an invariant:
- The owned typestate with invariant
bytes: List<Byte>), saying whether the given sequence of bytes constitutes a valid fully owned
- The shared typestate with invariant
ptr: Pointer), saying whether
ptris a valid pointer to an instance of
Tthat has been shared for lifetime
Moreover, those two states must be connected in the sense that the following axiom always holds:
- If we have borrowed, for lifetime
'a, a pointer
ptrpointing to a list of bytes
T.own(bytes)holds, then we can move to the shared typestate and obtain
T.shr('a, ptr). (Implicitly, when the original borrow ends, the type is moved back to the owned typestate.)
This axiom ensures that we can create a shared reference to something we own.
You may be wondering why sharing is a separate typestate here; shouldn’t that just be read-only access to a
T that someone else owns?
However, that clearly doesn’t work for
&Cell; to explain types with interior mutability we need sharing as a separate state.
I explained this in more detail in the previous post, but as a quick example consider that, if you fully own a
RefCell, the first field (storing the current count of readers/writers) has no special meaning whatsoever.
This is witnessed by
RefCell::get_mut ignoring that field.
In fact, it would be sound to add a
RefCell::reset(&mut self) that just resets this field to
Now, let us extend our notion of types to also support pinning.
The core piece of the pinning API is a new reference type
Pin<'a, T> that guarantees that the data it points to will remain at the given location, i.e. it will not be moved.
Crucially, pinning does not provide immovable types!
Data is only pinned after a
Pin<T> pointing to it has been created; it can be moved freely before that happens.
The corresponding RFC explains the entirey new API surface in quite some detail:
PinBox and the
Unpin marker trait.
I will not repeat that here but only show one example of how to use
Pin references and exploit their guarantees:
Update: Previously, the example code used
Option<ptr::NonNull<i32>>. I think using raw pointers directly makes the code easier to follow. /Update
The most intersting piece of code here is
read_ref, which dereferences a raw pointer,
The reason this is legal is that we can rely on the entire
SelfReferential not having been moved since
init() was called (which is the only place that would set the pointer to something non-NULL).
In particular, if we changed the signature to
fn init(&mut self), we could easily cause UB by writing the following code:
read_ref() will dereference a pointer into the memory that was allocated for
b1, but has since then been deallocated!
This is clearly wrong.
This example also shows that there cannot be a safe conversion from
&mut T to
Pin<T>: That would let us implement the problematic
init_ref(&mut self) by calling
In contrast, converting
PinBox<T> is fine because this consumes the
Box, so nobody will ever get “unpinned” access to it.
Pin lets us give a type to
SelfReferantial that makes it safe to use.
This is in the best tradition of Rust: We are using an expressive type system to provide safe APIs for operations that only have unsafe APIs in other languages (e.g., iterators that avoid iterator invalidation which plague even memory safe languages like Java).
In the following, I will explain how one can prove that our claim of safe encapsulation actually holds true.
This is building on the framework that we developed for the RustBelt paper.
Before we go on, I’d like to introduce some notation to make it easier to talk about ownership and borrowing of memory in a precise way. I feel like trying to express this all just in English and leaving away the formalism is not actually making it easier to understand. The full formalism we use in the paper is probably overkill, so I will go with a simplified version that glosses over many of the details.
For example, the axiom (a) stated above would look as follows:
forall |'a, ptr| borrowed('a, exists |bytes| ptr.points_to_owned(bytes) && T.own(bytes)) -> T.shr('a, ptr)
This is a formal statement that we have to prove whenever we define
T.shr for our own type
It says that for all lifetimes
'a and pointers
borrowed('a, ...) holds, then
T.shr('a, ptr) holds.
I am using the usual mathematical quantifiers, with a Rust-y syntax (
forall |var| ... and
exists |var| ...), and
-> for implication.
For disjunction (
||) and conjunction (
&&), I follow Rust.
Because Rust types are a lot about pointers and what they point to, we also need some way to talk about memory:
ptr: Pointer and
bytes: List<Byte>) means that
ptr points to
bytes.len() many bytes of memory containing the given
bytes of data, and that moreover, we own that memory.
Ownership here means that we are free to read, write and deallocate that memory, and that we are the only party that can do so.
Update: In a previous version I called this predicate
mem_own. I decided that
points_to_owned was actually easier to understand, and it also matches the standard terminology in the literature, so I switched to using that term instead. /Update
borrowed('a, P) says that
P is only temporarily owned, i.e., borrowed, for lifetime
P here is a proposition or assertion, i.e., a statement about what we expect to own. The axiom above is a proposition, as is
You can think of propositions as a fancy version of
bool where we can use things like quantifiers and borrowing, and talk about memory and ownership.
Let us see how we can define the owned typestate of
Box and mutable reference using this notation:
(&'a mut T).own. A
Box<T>is a list of bytes that make up a pointer, such that we own the memory this pointer points to and that memory satisfies
&'a mut Tis almost the same, except that memory and
T.ownare only borrowed for lifetime
Box<T>.own(bytes) := exists |ptr, inner_bytes| bytes.try_into() == Ok(ptr) && ptr.points_to_owned(inner_bytes) && T.own(inner_bytes)
(&'a mut T).own(bytes) := exists |ptr| bytes.try_into() == Ok(ptr) && borrowed('a, exists |inner_bytes| ptr.points_to_owned(inner_bytes) && T.own(inner_bytes))
:= means “is defined as”; this is a lot like a function definition in Rust where the part after the
:= is the function body.
Notice how we use
try_into to try to convert a sequence of bytes into a higher-level representation, namely a pointer.
This relies in
TryInto<U> being implemented for
The conversion fails, in particular, if the list of bytes does not have exactly the right length.
It turns out that using
try_into like we do above is actually a common pattern:
Often, when we define a predicate on bytes, we do not want to talk directly about the
List<Byte> but convert them to some higher-level representation first.
To facilitate this, we will typically define
T.own(data: U) for some
U such that
List<Byte>: TryInto<U>, the idea being that the raw list of bytes is first converted to a
U and the predicate can then directly access the higher-level data in
This could look as follows:
Box<T>.own(ptr: Pointer) := exists |inner_bytes| ptr.points_to_owned(inner_bytes) && T.own(inner_bytes)
(&'a mut T).own(ptr: Pointer) := borrowed('a, exists |inner_bytes| ptr.points_to_owned(inner_bytes) && T.own(inner_bytes))
The actual ownership predicate is then defined as
exists |data: U| bytes.try_into() == Ok(data) && T.own(data)
Extending Types to Verify
Coming back to our example, what would it take to prove that
SelfReferential can be used by arbitrary safe code?
We have to start by writing down the private invariants (for all typestates) of the type.
We want to say that if
self.read_ref is not NULL, then it is the address of
However, if we go back to our notion of Rust types that I laid out at the beginning of this post, we notice that it is impossible to refer to the “address of
And that’s not even surprising; this just reflects the fact that in Rust, if we own a type, we can always move it to a different location—and hence the invariant must not depend on the location.
So, to write down our invariant, we need to extend our notion of types. We will add a new, third typestate on top of the existing owned and shared typestates:
Definition 3a: Rust types with pinning. Extend definition 1 with a new typestate:
- The pinned state with invariant
ptr: Pointer), saying whether
ptris a valid pointer to an instance of
Tthat is considered pinned.
Notice that this state talks about a pointer being valid, in contrast to
T.own which talks about a sequence of bytes.
This gives us the expressivity we need to talk about immovable data:
SelfReferential.pin(ptr) says that
ptr points to some memory we own, and that memory stores some pair
(data, self_ref), and
self_ref is either NULL or the address of the first field,
data, at offset
SelfReferential.pin(ptr) := exists |data: i32, self_ref: *const i32| ptr.points_to_owned((data, self_ref)) && (self_ref == ptr::null() || self_ref == ptr.offset(0))
(In terms of memory layout,
SelfReferential is the same as a pair of
I am of course glossing over plenty of details here, but those details are not relevant right now.
SelfReferential also has an owned and a shared typestate, but nothing interesting happens there.)
With this choice, it is easy to justify that
read_ref is safe to execute: When the function begins, we can rely on
If we enter the
else branch, we know
self_ref is not NULL, hence it must be
As a consequence, the deref of
self_ref is fine.
Before we go on, I have to explain what I did with
Before I said that this predicate operates on
List<Byte>, but now I am using it on a pair of an
i32 and a raw pointer.
Again this is an instance of using a higher-level view of memory than a raw list of bytes.
For example, we might want to say that
ptr points to
42 of type
i32 by saying
ptr.points_to_owned(42i32), without worrying about how to turn that value into a sequence of bytes.
It turns out that we can define
points_to_owned in terms of a lower-level
points_to_owned_bytes that operates on
List<Byte> as follows:
ptr.points_to_owned(data: U) where List<Bytes>: TryInto<U> := exists |bytes| bytes.try_into() == Ok(data) && ptr.points_to_owned_bytes(bytes)
Just like before, we (ab)use the
TryInto trait to convert a properly laid out list of bytes into something of type
Verifying the Pin API
With our notion of types extended with a pinned typestate, we can now justify the
We will start with the methods that work for all types, and talk about the additional methods that require
Along the way, we will discover which additional axioms we need to add to connect our new pinned typestate to the existing ones.
This is where we get really technical.
Again, to verify a type, we first have to define its invariant for all typestates. Let us focus on the owned typestate:
Pin<'a, T>.own. A list of bytes makes a valid
PinBox<T>if those bytes form a pointer
ptrsuch that we own
ptris valid if we have borrowed
PinBox<T>.own(ptr) := T.pin(ptr)
Pin<'a, T>.own(ptr) := borrowed('a, T.pin(ptr))
Let us start with the
impl<T> From<Box<T>> for PinBox<T> , which can turn a
Box<T> into a
We can assume that
self satisfies the owned typestate invariant of
Box<T>, and we have to prove that our return value (which is the same pointer) satisfies the owned typestate invariant of
To justify this conversion, we need to turn a pointer to a fully owned
T into a pinned
T at the same location.
This seems like a reasonable principle to require in general, so we add it to our definition of types:
Definition 3b: Rust types with pinning. Extend definition 3a with a new axiom:
- If we own a pointer
ptrpointing to a list of bytes
T.own(bytes)holds, then we can move to the pinned typestate and obtain
forall |ptr, bytes| (ptr.points_to_owned(bytes) && T.own(bytes)) -> T.pin(ptr)
PinBox::new can now be easily implemented using
PinBox::as_pin, we start with a
&'a mut PinBox<T>, which is a pointer-to-pointer, and return the inner pointer as
This is justified because we start with a borrow for lifetime
'a of a pointer to some
bytes that satisfy (for the given lifetime)
borrowed('a, exists |bytes| ptr.points_to_owned(bytes) && PinBox<T>.own(bytes))
PinBox<T>.own, we can deduce that
bytes actually form a pointer
inner_ptr such that
T.pin(inner_ptr) (for the given lifetime).
This exactly matches our return type, so we’re good!
Finally, let us look at
impl<T> Deref for PinBox<T>.
This is where the shared typestate of
PinBox becomes relevant:
impl turns a
&'a PinBox<T> into a
&'a T by dereferencing it once.
To justify this, we have to be able to move from the pinned typestate of
T to the shared typestate, which we require as our final additional axiom:
Definition 3c: Rust types with pinning. Extend definition 3b with a new axiom:
- If we have borrowed, for lifetime
'a, a pointer
T.pin(ptr)holds, then we can move to the shared typestate and obtain
T.shr('a, ptr). (Implicitly, when the original borrow ends, the type is moved back to the owned typestate.) Formally:
forall |'a, ptr| borrowed('a, T.pin(ptr)) -> T.shr('a, ptr)
This is the final definition of Rust types with pinning.
Now we have connected the new pinned typestate with both the owned and the shared typestate, so these should be all the axioms we need.
Next, we define the shared typestate of
PinBox<T>.shr. A pointer
'asatisfy the shared typestate of
ptris a read-only pointer to another pointer
T.shr('a, inner_ptr). In other words, a shared
PinBox<T>is just a read-only pointer to a shared
PinBox<T>.shr('a, ptr) := exists |inner_ptr| ptr.points_to_read_only('a, inner_ptr) && T.shr('a, inner_ptr)
This requires a way to talk about memory that is read-only for the duration of some lifetime. We assume we have a predicate
ptr.points_to_read_only_bytes('a: Lifetime, bytes: List<Byte>)saying that
bytes.len()many bytes of valid memory containing
bytes, and that for lifetime
'a, we are free to read that memory and it will not change. We then define a convenient variant based on higher-level memory representations as usual:
ptr.points_to_read_only('a: Lifetime, data: U) where List<Bytes>: TryInto<U> := exists |bytes| bytes.try_into() == Ok(data) && ptr.points_to_read_only_bytes('a, bytes)
Remember that there is an axiom (a) connecting the owned and shared typestate; we have to make sure that this axiom is satisfied for
PinBox—it turns out that is the case, and the proof relies on the new axiom (c) we just added.
With this definition of
PinBox<T>.shr, justifying the
impl<T> Deref for PinBox<T> is fairly straight-forward.
This completes the methods available on
Pin follows the same approach, so I am not going to spell that out here.
Unpin marker trait lets type opt-out of pinning: If a type is
Unpin, the type doesn’t actually care about being pinned and hence we can freely convert between
&'a mut T and
Unpin. A type
T.pin(ptr)we can deduce that we own the pointer
ptrand it points to a list of bytes
forall |ptr| T.pin(ptr) -> (exists |bytes| ptr.points_to_owned(bytes) && T.own(bytes))
Note that this is exactly the inverse direction of axiom (b) added in definition 2b: For
Unpin types, we can freely move between the owned and pinned typestate.
SelfReferential is not
Unpin, and the example code above makes that explicit with an
On the other hand, for types like
i32, their pinned typestate invariant
i32.pin(ptr) will only care about the memory that
ptr points to and not about the actual value of
ptr, so they satisfy the
With this definition at hand, it should be clear that if we assume
T: Unpin, then
&'a mut T and
Pin<'a, T> are equivalent types, and so are
This justifies all the methods with an
Pin is a Local Extension
One advantage of this proposal is that it is local:
Existing types (and new types) that are designed without considering
Pin remain sound in the presence of this new typestate, even if we automatically derive the
Unpin trait for these types.
The reason this works is that we can always define
T.pin(ptr) as saying that we fully own
ptr pointing to
bytes such that we have
T.pin(ptr) := exists |bytes| ptr.points_to_owned(bytes) && T.own(bytes)
This satisfies the additional axioms (b) and (c) connecting the pinned typestate to the others, and it also satisfies
The latter is crucial, because it means we can automatically derive
Unpin instances through the auto trait mechanism and do not have to review the entire ecosystem for
We have seen how the new
Pin type can be used to give safe APIs to types like
SelfReferential (which, previously, was not possible), and how we can (semi-)formally argue for the correctness of
SelfReferential and the methods on
I hope I was able to shed some light both on how pinning is useful, and how we can reason about safety of a typed API in general.
Next time, we are going to look at an extension to the pinning API proposed by @cramertj which guarantees that
drop will be called under some circumstances, and how that is useful for intrusive collections.
Thanks for reading! I am looking forward to hearing your comments. In particular, I am curious if the made-up syntax for making the typestate invariants more precise was helpful.