Arguably the most important memory safety property, i.e. bounds checking for dynamic arrays, is also not statically checked in Rust.
back
4 comments
It's possible to do this (WUFFS does it) but it's so invasive that, well, you basically end up with WUFFS. You end up having to track every set of possible and impossible values at every location, etc. (during each program location too.) WUFFS certainly has its place and I've kind of been itching to try it out myself, but I think getting to the point where dynamic arrays can be statically bounds-checked would have highly disabled Rust.
How would Rust perform static checks on dynamic bounds? That seems like an impossible order, i.e. not a reasonable evaluation criteria for any (general-purpose) language.
(I'm separately skeptical that it's the most important memory safety property; I suspect that a review of Chrome and Firefox 0days would show that UAFs and type confusion are, at least to attackers, equally if not more important.)
Presumably, they're talking about the possibility of explicitly replacing dynamic bounds checks in cases where it's statically provable that the access will not overrun. That doesn't necessarily mean you lose cases where you genuinely can't prove such a thing, but rather that it would be possible to opt into compiler assistance with proving it, rather than hoping LLVM will have your back. At least, that's how I'd envision such a thing for Rust. This would be similar to how you can already choose whether to invite more of the borrow checker by using references directly, or to do the checks at runtime with Rc/RefCell, etc.
Yeah, that seems like a nice thing that Rust could offer. It strikes me as a weird thing to get hung up on, though, given that the norm in compiled languages - including C - is to express your bounds such that an optimizing compiler can (but won't necessarily) eliminate them.
(You mentioned WUFFS below, which is why I qualified with general-purpose! One thing that WUFFS does that I think Rust could add pretty easily is provable indexing, e.g. allow me to use a `u8` to index a `[u8; 256]` without having to widen to a `usize` first and hope that LLVM optimizes it back out.)
> rather than hoping LLVM will have your back
My thought here is to proactively verify that LLVM elided the automatic bounds checks in places where you believe that your explicit checks should be sufficient.
That was a key part of my article on "No-Panic Rust": https://blog.reverberate.org/2025/02/03/no-panic-rust.html ("A Dance With The Optimizer")
I merely pointed out that the statement "Rust prefers to prevent all undefined behavior statically" is misleading in the sense that Rust does not do this for all undefined behavior.
Maybe if you think of [] as offsetting a pointer rather than calling into an Index (or IndexMut) implementation. Since the return type isn't optional, a panic is the only way to avoid performing an invalid access or manufacturing an unfaithful return value. There are also optional accessors which do not panic, and unsafe/unchecked accessors.
Maybe? I think my statement is clearly correct in the way I formulated it.
ATS could probably do some of this by constructing proofs about the bounds and indices - not in the completely general case of course, but for at least some fraction of what a language without dependent types would have to defer to runtime
those are not dynamic bounds.
All "dynamic" means is that you don't know or don't prove the precise value statically. However you may know the range of possible values, or you may know properties of your algorithm that mean it can never attempt an out-of-bounds access. Sometimes you don't know any of these things, but sometimes you do.
What I was (badly) trying to express was more that given static bounds rust could also eliminate dynamic checks. So saying e.g. ATS can eliminate static checks, is kind of switching the target.
https://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/DOCUMENT/INT2PROGINATS/HTML... is the kind of thing I mean - ATS programs can include proofs that an array access will be safely within bounds, even if we don't have an exact literal subscript in the code.
Rust can not do this. But the original claim is that it is all statically checked in Rust, and this is an obvious counter example. Some dependently types languages can prove this statically, also model checking can do this, etc. So it can be done statically as well, but not in Rust.
> But the original claim is that it is all statically checked in Rust
Where? The GP's comment says "prefers," which I didn't read to mean a blanket statement. I don't think anybody with more than passing experience in Rust (or C) would make such a claim.
> Some dependently types languages can prove this statically, also model checking can do this, etc. So it can be done statically as well, but not in Rust.
You're couching the part where it can't be done with full generality or can be done with full generality, but with punishing semantics. The appropriate comparison here is with other normal general purpose compiled languages.
I read "Rust prefers to prevent all undefined behavior statically," to also imply that it actually does this, because otherwise the word "all" would not make sense to me in this sentence.
Dependently types languages and model checking do exist. They come with tradeoffs, but this is also true for Rust.
This isn't entirely true. Rust's indexing operator performs a dynamic check but the language and stdlib have a number of ways to access array elements without indexing, which is effectively a form of static checking. For example, the following loop is statically guaranteed to not go OOB, and will not emit any unnecessary bounds checks:
for i in some_arr {
println!("{i}");
}
These are not terribly interesting cases though, as it would also be impossible to get an oob access in other languages either.
Yes, rust didn't invent the concept of an iterator, and is thus not the only language which offers a solution to statically avoid bounds checks. Feel free to give a more "interesting" case you believe rust wouldn't be able to handle.
Rust fails to prove basic indirection to be statically safe and instead does a run-time check.
fn main() {
let v = vec![1, 2, 3];
v[5];
}If this was an array, that is, a built-in type with a static length, this example does give a compile-time error: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
However, a vector's length is inherently a runtime concept, and is a user-defined library type, so the compiler does not attempt to directly reason about this at compile time. However, for this example, post-optimizations, it doesn't do a runtime check at all: it calls the panic directly, because the optimizer does in fact reason that this always panics and removes the dynamic check.
It is true that Rust inserts dynamic checks for things that it can't prove statically, but so do dependently typed languages. "Please read an integer from stdin and then load that element of an array" is not possible to statically check, it must rely on runtime checks, definitionally.
A: "Rust prefers to prevent all undefined behavior statically"
me: It does dynamic bounds checking.
Rustaceans: But... for XYZ ... it doesn't...
Sigh.
It's because you're not using words in the way that people use them when talking about this stuff.
Rust (outside of the unsafe superset) has no undefined behavior. That is guaranteed, statically, at compile time: all execution paths have well-defined behaviors. That does not mean that there are no runtime consequences whatsoever. For example, the behavior of an invalid index is a panic, at runtime. Inserting a check for an invalid index at compile time is static enforcement of the behavior, even if the check itself happens at runtime.
If you had said "sometimes, Rust can't eliminate dynamic checks because it doesn't have a strong enough reasoning about some compile time properties" nobody would be arguing with you about this. Your example is one where a language with stronger reasoning would be able to detect it, for sure. Lean can do this, for example.
These are all true? I don’t see the problem?
Rust does prefer static checks. It uses static analysis to prevent many types of bugs - including use-after-free and data races. But you’re right; rust still falls back to runtime checks when static analysis is too hard. Like dynamic bounds checking and integer overflow (in debug mode). Cell, Refcell and friends also have a (small) runtime cost. Rust prefers static analysis but does not use it exclusively.
Let’s say rust is 80% static analysis, 20% dynamic checks. Fil-C seems to go the other way and have 80+% dynamic checks. It’s an interesting point.
Nobody disagrees with you that rust sometimes inserts dynamic bounds checks. But “prefer” in this context means “most of the time, when possible” not “all of the time”. I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate. But I still eat chocolate ice cream when vanilla isn’t available. Pointing out that one time I ate chocolate ice cream isn’t a gotcha moment.
Now it's your example that's too simple. I can't present a counter-example that wouldn't look totally different: if you avoid the indexing operator then trivially incorrect code like that becomes unrepresentable. It's like if I said destructors help you avoid memory leaks and you asked how you'd avoid a leak in a single-function program that does nothing but call `Box::leak()`.
Again: I'm not disputing the fact that the rust index operator does a dynamic bounds check.
If you agree with that Rust sometimes has to add dynamic bounds check, then you could have just agreed with my original comment.
But that's also arguably pretty boring because it's very easy to dynamically check and the cost for doing so is relatively small compared to what needs to be done for other properties.
On the other hand statically checking bounds for (dynamic and non) arrays is very very hard in the general case.