Tracking Issue for `std::cell::{Ref, RefMut}::leak`

[HeroicKatora]

68712 adds methods to convert RefCell guards Ref/RefMut into references with the lifetime of the underlying cell.

The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(cell_leak)].

Unresolved Questions

• [ ] Should similar methods be provided for MutexGuard and RwLockReadGuard/RwLockWriteGuard?
• [ ] Should unsafe methods be added to forcefully revert a leak?
• [ ] For undo_leak, would it make more sense not to return a reference (i.e., separate this from get_mut)?

[Amanieu]

We discussed this during the libs meeting today and feel that there is a lack of a specific use case for these methods. @HeroicKatora (or anyone else) could you describe how you are using these methods in your own code?

In particular we feel that undo_leaks is unlikely to be useful in practice: if you've got a RefCell then you are unlikely to ever be able to get a mutable reference to it (except maybe in drop, but then you can just use get_mut and ignore the ref count).

[HeroicKatora]

To expand on my original use case, consider an embedded network stack. More specifically, a routing table in an almost static network, that is changing infrequently (i.e. statically configured). This table will contain addresses of some relevant remote machines, and is initialized by state machines that discover those remotes in the network and insert their addresses and paths to the table. For reasons of avoiding allocation during operation, the table itself is represented by an unsized slice type: OrdSlice<Addr>.

Since multiple independent actors are supposed to access the table by methods taking &mut OrdSlice<_>, to insert their endpoints, we must employ a form of runtime borrow checking. I had initially considered an unsafe implementation until noting that I would just be replicating the exact fields of RefCell and figuring out it could fit into its types.

Note that each insert operation might modify the whole slice to keep it sorted so we can't use a simple entry-based API where we split the borrow upfront in this case. (Technically, some GhostCell variant could maybe be used as well but at the time it wasn't nearly as established and I did not want to have too much unsafe proof obligations floating around). The code that runs after the operation expects a reference to the whole table, mostly immutable but noalias is good for codegen and there may be modifications during runtime, and we really did not want the details of the setup or the RefCell wrapping to leak through to that module. More on evaluation of alternatives later. Simplified code sketch of the structure involved:

/// A slice of ordered values, with bisect lookup.
/// Note: builtin unsizing by choosing `U = [T; N]`.
pub struct OrdSlice<T, U: ?Sized = [T]>(PhantomData<T>, U);

mod netstack {
    pub struct Runtime<'net> {
        _foo: &'net mut OrdSlice<Addr>,
    }
}

mod embedded_app {
    pub struct FindFoo<'net> {
        target: &'net RefCell<OrdSlice<Addr>>,
    }

    enum Network<'net> {
        Setup {
            target: &'net RefCell<OrdSlice<Addr>>,
            with_foo_service: Option<FindFoo<'net>>,
        … },
        Running {
            net: Runtime<'net>,
        … },
    }
}

There are several key reasons why RefCell (and likewise constructs) are avoided in the netstack module. Firstly it is used by other applications, some of which choose to allow dynamic allocations and thus pass around owned, copied Vec<_> instances instead of the more complex scheme of embedded_app. By not using Ref in the stack itself we allow both usage patterns without complex generic parameters. Also note the stability implication of using &RefCell<T>. What is required to freely utilize the object in this logically distinct code module would be a cell that has no outstanding borrows. Which is just &mut T with extra steps, in particular depending on absence of programmer misuse.

Actual usage (with initialization for completeness) is then as follows:

fn ingress_step<'net>(
    network: &mut Network<'net>,
    queues: &mut …,
    …
) {
    match network {
        Setup { target, with_foo_service, … } => {
            // some setup io..
            if let Some(foo) = &with_foo_service {
                foo.ingress(queues);
            }

            // Done with setup?
            if !with_foo_service.as_ref().map_or(true, FindFoo::is_done) {
                return;
            }

            // Switch to active service mode.
            network = Network::Running {
                net: RefMut::leak(target.borrow_mut()), …
            };
        },
        Running { net } => route_packets(net, queues),
    }
}

Which we can run with error recovery by utilizing undo_leak:

// Modified and shortened obviously..
fn run(addr: &RefCell<OrdSlice<Addr>>) -> Result<()> {
    let mut state = Network::new(addr);
    let mut queues = …;

    loop {
        ingress(&mut state, &mut queues);
        egress(&mut state, &mut queues);

        queues.errors()?;
    }

    Ok(())
}

fn main() {
    let addr: OrdSlice<_, [_; 16]> = Default::default();
    let mut addr = RefCell::new(addr);

    loop {
        // Otherwise, second `run` will panic.
        RefCell::undo_leak(&mut addr);

        if let Err(_) = run(&addr) { … }
    }
}

Alternatives

… and why they were not chosen.

• Construct Runtime<'net> transiently from a &'net OrdSlice<Addr> in each iteration of the loop body. This sidesteps the lifetime issue by storing a reference to the original RefCell instead. However, this is not very clean code as Runtime can no longer protect any inner invariants—possibly involving correctness checks in each iteration as part of construction.
• Introduce a different lifetime in Network, just complicates the implementation which is duplicated a lot and is quite unreadable. Note that this style can introduce unexpected implicit and explicit lifetime bound requirements, adding to the effect.
• Replace the Network state machine with code. Break run into separate loops for each of the states, introducing a Ref in the second half, which is borrowed for the Runtime. This duplicates the ingress/egress portion, error handling and forces all similar state machines to be exposed at that level.
• Without undo_leak we could also just exit and have the outer system deal with error recovery and restart. This gives less control over the precise behavior during recovery, which might be fine as I'm merely using it for logging. We're losing some program state, however, which might also be worked around with shared memory files. It's simply more convenient to handle it in the program, though.

[DavidVonDerau]

Note that each insert operation might modify the whole slice to keep it sorted so we can't use a simple entry-based API where we split the borrow upfront in this case. (Technically, some GhostCell variant could maybe be used as well but at the time it wasn't nearly as established and I did not want to have too much unsafe proof obligations floating around). The code that runs after the operation expects a reference to the whole table, mostly immutable but noalias is good for codegen and there may be modifications during runtime, and we really did not want the details of the setup or the RefCell wrapping to leak through to that module.

I have a very similar situation that warrants this functionality, including the need for undo_leaks.

I think that this comes up in any situation with the following constraints:

1. The code is running in a loop.
2. The code must use run-time borrow checking. Normally, this is due to something like a collection where different parts of it can be read / mutated independently, but it's determined at run-time and you can't use a "disjoint" entry API.
3. The data is accessed in a way where the lifetime of the Ref is too short -- e.g. in a loop where each Ref must be dropped before the next loop iteration.

My simplified example looks something like the following:

struct State {
    wrapper: Wrapper,
    counter: u64,
}

// Wrapper to make sure this isn't Clone / Copy.
struct DataType(u64);

struct FrameData<'sim> {
    data: &'sim DataType
}

mod inner {
    use std::cell::RefCell;
    use super::*;

    // This wrapper is needed so that nothing else can call `borrow` or `borrow_mut`.
    pub struct Wrapper {
        data: RefCell<DataType>
    }

    impl Wrapper {
        pub fn new() -> Self {
            Self {
                data: RefCell::new(DataType(0))
            }
        }

        pub fn simulate(&mut self, new_value: DataType) {
            *self.data.borrow_mut() = new_value;
        }

        pub fn wrapper_frame_data<'frame, 'sim: 'frame>(&'sim self, frame_data: &mut Vec<FrameData<'frame>>) {
            let guard = self.data.borrow();
            let data: &DataType = &*guard;

            // Transmute the data to the `sim lifetime, because we know that the state can't be modified during that lifetime.
            let data: &'sim DataType = unsafe { std::mem::transmute(data) };
            frame_data.push(FrameData {
                data
            });
        }
    }
}

use inner::Wrapper;

fn simulate(state: &mut State) {
    state.counter += 1;

    // This is the only place where the `wrapper` could be modified -- we need a &mut reference.
    state.wrapper.simulate(DataType(state.counter));
}

fn state_frame_data<'frame, 'sim: 'frame>(state: &'sim State, frame_data: &mut Vec<FrameData<'frame>>) {
    // `wrapper` cannot be mutated or dropped while `&'sim State` lives.
    state.wrapper.wrapper_frame_data(frame_data);
}

fn render(state: &State) {
    let mut frame_data = Vec::new(); // <-- This definitely lives less time than `State`.
    state_frame_data(state, &mut frame_data);
    for data in frame_data {
        println!("{}", data.data.0);
    }
}

fn main() {
    let mut state = State {
        wrapper: Wrapper::new(),
        counter: 0,
    };

   loop {
        simulate(&mut state);
        render(&state);
    }
}

Using the API, all I'd need to do is make 2 changes:

pub fn simulate(&mut self, new_value: DataType) {
    RefCell::undo_leak(&mut self.data);
    *self.data.get_mut() = new_value;
}

pub fn wrapper_frame_data<'frame, 'sim: 'frame>(&'sim self, frame_data: &mut Vec<FrameData<'frame>>) {
    let guard = self.data.borrow();
    let data: &DataType = &*guard;

    // No more unsafe!                                                                                                   
    let data: &'sim DataType = Ref::leak(guard);
    frame_data.push(FrameData {
        data
    });
}

[c410-f3r]

What is the current status of this feature?