Near the beginning of the post is a list of use cases for mutable aliasing. "Back-references", "doubly-linked lists", "delegates" - all cases where you have persistent objects with references to each other, i.e. a cyclic graph of objects.
Near the end, the post says: “The mutual isolation restriction will influence our programs' data to look like trees, similar to how Rust's borrow checker does.” In other words, the proposed approach can’t actually support those use cases!
The post continues by saying it improves on Rust’s borrow checker by having “much more relaxed rules around how we access those trees from the outside”. That may be true, and I’m legitimately looking forward to playing with this in Mojo. But it’s a much smaller improvement (while still coming at the cost of added complexity). It doesn’t really “get the best of both worlds” as the post says earlier.
To be fair, there may be ways to apply similar ideas to get some subset of use cases for cyclic object graphs to work. Some of verdagon’s past blog posts have proposed mechanisms that do something like that. But that would be a whole different thing from what’s being proposed here.
That said, there is still hope! I have been iterating on the design over the last 9 months and am fairly confident that I can model graphs, as long as a few restrictions are imposed, such as not being able to delete nodes. But I can't prove this will work yet, so we will need to wait and see what the next design iteration looks like. I'm fairly confident that the next iteration will be more powerful than the version presented in OP's blog post.
I understand the reason for having 1 mutable xor n immutable references... but I think Rust made the wrong choice here: now we see two versions of each method, one with mutable and another without mutable. It's similar to the async coloring problem, but instead of async / not async, in Rust you have mutable and non-mutable. It would simplify things a lot for the programmer (not for the compiler, OK), if all borrows are mutable. Sure the compiler can't always emit noalias, and multi-threading gets slower... But with a sane memory model (as in Java), I think it would be simpler for the programmer.
As a thought experiment, I've been imagining how this would handle an architecture like e.g. Google Earth's, where a program's classes are divided into multiple "layers". For example, an upper "business logic" layer (DocumentManager, Document, CardManager, Card, StateManager) might have references to the more general "services" lower layer (NetworkService, FileService).
With Nick's system, we could have a group annotation on these various upper-layer classes, like e.g. `Document[s: group IService]`. With these annotations, these upper-layer classes can have references to the services themselves (though not their contents). This might let services' methods mutate the services' contents even though others have references to them (though not their contents). The services' methods would have to communicate that they're modifying the contents of the services (via a `mut` annotation), and the compiler would prevent holding references to the services' contents across those callsites. But also, those contents are private anyway, so the user wouldn't have those references anyway.
If that turns out to be true (Nick and I are still exploring it) then he's found a way to make borrowing work for some DAG-shaped program architectures, rather than just strictly tree-shaped architectures.
On top of that, if we compose this approach with linear types, I think we can get at least halfway towards compile-time-memory-safe back-references. TBD whether that works, but that would be pretty exciting.
TL;DR: My saying it only supports tree-shaped programs is me hedging and being conservative.
Still, until these things are proven to work, I should be more consistent in when I'm conservative vs optimistic. I'll update the article to address that. Thanks for pointing that out and helping me be more consistent!
Yet while correctness may excite programmers, it's security that gets the decision makers' attention. At the end of the day, security is just much more impactful.
We'll see if Morello ever makes its way to the types of CPUs used on phones and higher-performance devices.
https://docs.oracle.com/en/operating-systems/solaris/oracle-...
It was interesting enough that I knew I had to write a post about it. Happy to answer any questions!
Is the always true? What with piplining, branch prediction, and maybe asymmetrical NUMA , isn't out of order instructions possible? If so, don't you still need locks or memory barriers to ensure safety?
(I am most definitely not an expert, just curious.)
For example, an Intel CPU won't reorder `x += 1` and `x *= 2`.
I think you guys should check out Verona (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/project-ver...).
A reference into a vector is unstable so you can only have 1 mut xor N read. A reference into an arena is stable so you can have all the muts you want, but they cannot be sent across threads.
Reference to object vs reference to contents is also related, you can safely have multiple mut references to the same object that cannot invalidate each other, even if they invalidate references to the contents.
This can be tracked with path analysis as employed by Hylo (Hylo only has second class references, but I mean the algorithm they use to track paths is applicable).
I can't not see this as a good thing. It's almost at the level of "the only thing an ownership system does".
If my thread is operating on a struct of 4 int64s, do I now have to think about another read-only thread seeing that struct in an invalid partially-written state?
TL;DR: Mutability is tracked at the group level, so we can share an immutable group with any number of threads (especially good with structured concurrency) or lend a mutable group to a single other thread. References themselves are still aliasable, regardless of the group's mutability.
Taking an existing (mutable, aliasing) group and temporarily interpreting it as immutable has precedent (I did it in Vale [0]) so I like the approach, but I might be biased ;)
(This is from my memory of how Nick's proposal works, I'll ask him to give a better answer once morning hits his Australia timezone)
[0] https://verdagon.dev/blog/zero-cost-borrowing-regions-part-1...
I wrote a more detailed answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45057636
This isn't quite true. While Rust doesn't currently support this, people have proposed the concept of `&own` references that take ownership of the object and free it when the reference goes out of scope (consider that Rust's standard destructor signature, `fn drop(&mut)`, should probably take one of these hypothetical owning references). I addition, I believe that languages with typestate can cause types to change as a result of function calls, although I don't quite understand the details.
[0] https://perso.crans.org/vanille/treebor/aux/preprint.pdf
I suppose you could describe the differences from Rust as follows:
- Borrowing happens for the duration of a function call, rather than the lifetime of a reference.
- We borrow entire groups, rather than individual references.
The latter trick is what allows a function to receive mutably aliasing references. Although it receives multiple such references, it only receives one group parameter, and that is what it borrows.
Hope that makes sense!
I don't understand this part. Cannot a function store a borrowed reference into a structure that outlives the function?
Note that Rust is more strict than necessary - theoretically you can have multiple writable and readable references, but not use them simultaneously and observe the rule. But it is difficult (or even impossible) to verify during compilation so Rust doesn't allow it. C allows it but leaves verification to the author which doesn't work well and doesn't scale.
This situation can happen if you have a graph of objects. For example, in an OS you might have a Process object having references to a list of opened Files, and have a File hold reference back to Process that opened it. In this case you cannot ever have a writable reference to the Process from anywhere because Files already have multiple reading references. And Files can have only read-only references to the Process that opened them.
So you have to use only read-only references and additional structures like Cell, Arc etc. that allow safe writing through them. They are cheap, but not free and ideally we as developers want to have memory safety for free. That's the problem yet to solve.
Note that there are other ways to achieve safety:
- use C and manually verify that your program never breaks this rule - requires god level coding skills
- immutable data - after the writer finished writing, data are "frozen" and can be safely shared without any checks and no rules are broken. Very good, but modification is expensive and requires you to clone the data or use clever and complicated design (for example, if you have 10-elements array but shared a reference only to first 7 elements, you can safely append to the last 3 elements because nobody else knows about them - that's how ring buffers work). See immer C++ library for example.
- atomic variables - allow safe reading and writing at the same time, but can hold at most 8 bytes. Note that using a same variable from different CPU cores causes L1 cache line migrations which, last time I measured it, takes about 2-3 ns or ~10-15 cycles.
- mutexes - ensure rule is observed but make everyone wait. Python's approach.
- using only a single thread. JavaScript's approach. You can have multiple references but you still need to ensure they are pointing to a live object (JS solves this by using an expensive garbage collector).
And by the way if you know more methods or ideas please share them!
Use a transaction manager (HTM or STM). The STM is going to boil down to lockfree synchronization, logging, and retry. Transactions can fail and retry.
But ultimately, all inter-thread communication boils down to programs (or libraries) using barriers for acquire/release semantics and/or using compare/swap and atomic read-modify-write.
> at any point of time there can be either one writer or multiple readers
Time is a slippery notion in concurrency. Most language-level memory models (e.g. Java) or even hardware-level concurrency models focus on happens-before relations, which are induced by executing certain operations. At the hardware level, you can basically think that a CPU receives asynchronous updates about cache lines from other processors (potentially out of order). While technically the cache coherence protocol pushes cache lines into processors, you can't ever guarantee that one "writer" can "push" updates into all other CPUs. Instead, you have to rely on those other CPUs executing either fences or being forced to execute fences through global OS means, such as IPIs. Those other CPUs executing fences (barriers) or other atomic operations induce happens-before relations.
I believe so, yes. Currently the only way to transfer ownership is by-value, and LLVM might optimize away the memcpy, but also it might not.
Owner = can read/write/destroy
Mutable ref = can read/write
Immutable ref = can only read, guarantered not to change
Do you have any specific languages?
let x: u8;
foo(x); // error
x = 42;
But consider that the type of x hasn't changed as a result of the initialization. Beforehand it was a u8, and afterward it was still a u8, and yet something about the state of the variable changed my ability to use it in various contexts. I believe that typestate is something like this, generalized to allow variables to flow through states (like a compile-time state machine) to ensure that things happen in the correct order.
This new approach still requires us to be mindful of our data layout. Not caring about data layout is still definitely a strength of GC and RC. I'm actually hoping to find a way to blend Nick's approach seamlessly with reference counting (preferably without risking panics or deadlocks) to get the best of both worlds, so that we can consider it for Mojo. I consider that the holy grail of memory safety, and some recent developments give me some hope for that!
(Also, I probably shouldn't mention it since it's not ready, but Nick's newest model might have found a way to solve that for separate-chaining hash maps where addresses are stable. We might be able to express that to the type system, which would be pretty cool.)
Ante's approach manages to blend a similar scheme for safe, shared mutability with Rc. There are some examples on the most recent blog post on its website of it. IMO combined with its shared types it emulates high-level GC'd code very well.
Idk if it may be possible to introduce "semantic monitors". Say, a field within a class and an external container must be updated together. In practice the only time when I have needed to break the single ownership is for keeping internal data views. I know it is safe, but convincing Rust of that is painful.
As for C, it leaves verifying the safety up to you, it is not easy at all and I would rather spend time on something else using safe languages.
So, with the understanding that "borrowing" means "locking others out", a group parameter borrows the group for the duration of the function call. If it borrows the group as mutable, no other group parameters can borrow the group. If it borrows the group as immutable, other group parameters are limited to borrowing the group as immutable. This is reminiscent of the Rust model, but the XOR rule applies to group parameters rather than references, and borrowing lasts the duration of a function call, rather than the lifetime of a reference.
If you're talking about heap, you can accomplish that by restricting that the references can't be used to free or invalidate the memory. But you could still allow them to be mutable.
For my own programming language [1], I have only mutable borrowers (similar to Java), and a much simpler borrow checker: a method that holds a borrow can not call a method that potentially frees an object of the same type (directly or indirectly). I'm not sure yet if this is sufficient; it's still a borrow checker, just a very simple one. (My language uses reference counting by default, but does support single ownership + borrowing.)
Yes, but what about:
``` let mut x = &mut some_vec; some_vec.push(10); ```
Sure the vec has an owner, but the second mutable borrow causes it to invalidate the first pointer. You need a _third_ category, “unstable mut”, which is exclusive as it can cause an object’s internal data to move. You can then collapse mut and immutable to one… but you end up with the exact some colouring problem between unstable mut and the others
My solution to this would be: in a new language, do not allow reallocation. Not for owners, and not for mut borrow. This is what Java does: an ArrayList is a wrapper around an array, and so adding entries will not move the ArrayList object, just the (wrapped) private array. In Java the programmer never sees dangling references. Java prevents the issue by design, at the cost of always paying for the wrapper. If you want to avoid this price, you need to use the array directly.
(I have to admit I was not aware that in Rust, push moves the memory... so thanks a lot for explaining! Always learning something new.)
I don’t have any problem with Rust’s focus on performance. But its design does make life harder for developers than it needs to be. It doesn't match my vision of a programming language that is at the same time easy to use, safe, and nearly as fast as C.
Bit off topic, but is there any particular reason you went with a go-like `ident type` syntax over the more common ones like the C or the ML one?
I just think that ":" is unnecessary. In my language, the type is mostly used in function declarations and types, eg.
fun File read(data i8[], pos int, len int) int
type List(T)
array T[]
size int
You are correct, but for simplicity we can assume that the CPU executes one operation at a time and still have a valid model for reasoning about data races.
> But ultimately, all inter-thread communication boils down to programs (or libraries) using barriers for acquire/release semantics and/or using compare/swap and atomic read-modify-write.
Interesting. I read about STM and it reminded me of "modification box" algorithm for modifying immutable trees, which also uses versions. So it is another clever but complicated trick. Also it seems that it requires locking? That's not very good given that locks often need syscalls.
AFAIU in most STMs all the fast paths are implemented using lock-free algorithms with just barriers.
STM requires locking in the same way that GC requires malloc. It gets it right so that the programmer doesn't mess it up.
How can you free something if it's not allocated
What I meant was, creating a box creates a new allocation, whereas my understanding of &own would take over an existing allocation.
If you read the docs at your link it even says:
> This method is called implicitly when the value goes out of scope, and cannot be called explicitly (this is compiler error E0040).
> However, the mem::drop function in the prelude can be used to call the argument’s Drop implementation.
By the way the implementation of the function drop is just an empty function [2]; that's enough as local variables are destroyed on function return.
Mutable reference is a "borrow" which means you take a value from an owner and promise to return it back, and you cannot destroy a thing that you must return.
Because the counter is non-atomic and non-volatile the optimiser can sometimes optimise out the actual modification of the counter. It's not free, but it's not also not a huge expense.
That's also how Vec works in Rust. Vec is just (buf_ptr, capacity, len) where capacity is the allocated size of the buffer.
The problem still exists though.
``` let mut v = vec![1, 2 ,3]; let x: &i32 = &v[0]; v.push(4); println!("First element {x}"); ```
The `push` might realloc the array. Then, x points into invalid memory. This is caused by the projection: You can create a reference to a field (aka member) from a reference to the base object.
A language without realloc sounds painful. Any growing container would lead to stale data.
> A language without realloc sounds painful. Any growing container would lead to stale data.
I think it's not so much about realloc, but about whether it's a fat pointer or not. (I could imagine that Java uses something like realloc for the array, if there is only one pointer to the array for sure).
Fat pointers have some advantages and some disadvantages. Rust chose fat pointers, I assume for performance reasons. That's fine. Java doesn't. But I don't think that's a _huge_ performance disadvantage for Java. What I'm arguing is not so much that one is better and the other is worse, just that there are advantages and disadvantages. Rust might be slightly faster, but a language without (this kind of) fat pointers could potentially be easier to use.
Though, for my example, the storage location of the array metadata/fat pointer is not relevant.
In Rust you can hold references directly into the buffer backing the array (`&v[0]`).
My Java knowledge is quite rusty at this point. AFAIK, a `ArrayList<MyType>` in Java stores pointers to MyType in the buffer. So, when indexing into a ArrayList, you never hold references into the actual buffer. Instead you get a shared-pointer to the class data. It's the indirection of the array entry that saves you during reallocation of the buffer.
Also because Java is a GC'ed VM, it wont dealloc the elements references by the array, as long as there are other references to an element.
The equivalent in Rust is `Vec<Rc<MyType>>` where holding an `&Rc<MyType>` referencing into the vec's buffer is problematic during reallocation. But, cloning the Rc and holding on to it is perfectly fine.
The initial point of this thread was that you can have a Rust-like language where you can hold multiple mutating (aliasing) references and prevent use-after-free. This won't work. Without a GC or RC, you can use one reference to "rug-pull" the memory that is aliases by the other reference.
Yes! But I am arguing that this prevents having multiple mutable references
> My Java knowledge is quite rusty > Also because Java is a GC'ed VM ...
Your Java knowledge is fine :-) But I'm arguing that you don't strictly need a GC'ed, or RC'ed language: if done "correctly", multiple mutable references are possible. Just not with fat pointers! The programming language I'm building allows this even today. You can try it in the playground [1]:
fun main()
list := List+(int[4]) # <<= owned list
borrow : &list # <<= mutable borrow
for i := until(4)
borrow.add(i)
list.add(10 * i)
for i := until(8)
println(borrow.array[i])
type List
array int[]
size int
fun List+ add(x int)
if size >= array.len
n : int[array.len * 2]
for i := until(array.len)
n[i] = array[i]
array = n
array[size] = x
size += 1