https://www.circle-lang.org/draft-profiles.html Why Safety Profiles Failed Document #: Date: 2024-10-24 Project: Programming Language C++ Audience: Reply-to: Sean Baxter Contents * 1 Abstract * 2 C++ is under-specified + 2.1 Inferring aliasing + 2.2 Inferring lifetimes + 2.3 Inferring safeness * 3 Lifetime safety is static typing * 4 Lifetime parameters don't cause soundness bugs * 5 C++ is too irregular for Profiles + 5.1 C++ cannot enforce exclusivity * 6 Carcinization * 7 C++ in the future * 8 References 1 Abstract As for dangling pointers and for ownership, this model detects all possible errors. This means that we can guarantee that a program is free of uses of invalidated pointers. - A brief introduction to C++'s model for type- and resource- safety[type-and-resource-safety-2015] Safety Profiles were introduced in 2015 with the promise to detect all lifetime safety defects in existing C++ code. It was a bold claim. But after a decade of effort, Profiles failed to produce a specification, reliable implementation or any tangible benefit for C++ safety. The cause of this failure involves a number of mistaken premises at the core of its design: 1. "Zero annotation is required by default, because existing C++ source code already contains sufficient information"[P3465R0] 2. "We should not require a safe function annotation"[P3446R0] 3. "Do not add a feature that requires viral annotation"[P3466R0] 4. "Do not add a feature that requires heavy annotation"[P3466R0] The parameters of the problem make success impossible. This paper examines the contradictions in these premises, explains why the design didn't improve safety in the past and why it won't improve safety in the future. 2 C++ is under-specified Zero annotation is required by default, because existing C++ source code already contains sufficient information. - Pursue [P1179R1] as a Lifetime Safety TS[P3465R0] C++ source code does not have sufficient information for achieving memory safety. A C++ function declaration lacks three things that are critical for lifetime safety: 1. Aliasing information. 2. Lifetime information. 3. Safeness information. Functions involving parameter types with pointer or reference semantics have implicit aliasing, lifetime and safeness requirements. Safety Profiles cannot recover these properties from C++ code, because there are no language facilities to describe them. These requirements are only specified in documentation, if they are specified at all. 2.1 Inferring aliasing A C++ compiler can infer nothing about aliasing from a function declaration. A function parameter with a mutable reference might always alias other parameters, it might never alias other parameters, or it might not care about aliasing other parameters. // i and j must always alias. They must refer to the same container. void f1(std::vector::iterator i, std::vector::iterator j) { // If i and j point into different vectors, you have real problems. std::sort(i, j); } // vec must not alias x. void f2(std::vector& vec, int& x) { // Resizing vec may invalidate x if x is a member of vec. vec.push_back(5); // Potential use-after-free. x = 6; } // vec may or may not alias x. It doesn't matter. void f3(std::vector& vec, const int& x) { vec.push_back(x); } f1 and f2 have aliasing requirements. In f1, both iterators must point into the same container. In f2, x must not come from the container vec. These requirements are only visible as documentation. The compiler cannot infer a function's aliasing requirements from its declaration or even from its definition. If the safety profile enforces no mutable aliasing, then the definitions of f1 and f3 will fail to compile, breaking your program. int main() { std::vector vec1, vec2; // *Incorrectly* permits call. // UB, because the iterators point into different containers. f1(vec1.begin(), vec2.end()); // *Incorrectly* rejects call. // This is the correct usage, but mutable aliasing prevents compilation. f1(vec1.begin(), vec1.end()); // *Correctly* rejects call. f2(vec1, vec1[2]); // *Incorrectly* rejects call. f3(vec1, vec1[2]); } Profiles chose the wrong convention for several uses. It permits the incorrect call to f1 to compile, but rejects a correct usage of f1 on the grounds of mutable aliasing. An unsound call to f2 is correctly rejected, but a sound call to f3 is also rejected. Rejecting or permitting code (rightly or wrongly) is a matter of coincidence, not intelligence. Without language-level aliasing information, compile-time memory safety is not possible. This requirement is the motivation for Rust's borrow type. A mutable borrow cannot alias other borrows. That's enforced by the borrow checker. Raw pointers have no aliasing requirements, but are unsafe to dereference. In general, things that can be checked by the compiler are checked, and things that can't be checked are unsafe to use. (Compiler Explorer) #include #include void func(std::vector& vec, int& x) { vec.push_back(1); x = 2; // A write-after-free when x is a member of vec! } int main() { std::vector vec; vec.push_back(1); func(vec, vec[0]); std::cout<< vec[0]<< "\n"; std::cout<< vec[1]<< "\n"; } Program returned: 0 1 1 The Safety Profiles partial reference implementation can't prevent aliasing-related undefined behavior because C++ doesn't provide aliasing information. 2.2 Inferring lifetimes A C++ compiler can infer nothing about lifetimes from a function declaration. A reference return type may be constrained by the lifetimes of any number of reference parameters, by none of the reference parameters, or by some other lifetime. // The returned reference is only constrained by the lifetime of the map // parameter. // It is not constrained by the lifetime of the key parameter. const int& f4(std::map& map, const int& key) { return map[key]; } // The returned reference is constrained by the lifetime of both x and y // parameters. const int& f5(const int& x, const int& y) { return std::min(x, y); } // The returned reference is not constrained by the lifetime of any // reference parameter. const int& f6(const int& key) { static std::map map; return map[key]; } These three functions have different lifetime requirements, which are indicated by comments. This information is available to developers but not to the compiler. What's the strategy to uphold these lifetime requirements? Read the documentation, read the code, and don't make mistakes. int main() { std::map map; // r4 is constrained by lifetimes of map and 40. int& r4 = f4(map, 40); // *Incorrectly* rejects usage of r4. r4 is constrained to the lifetime // of the temporary 40, which expired at the end of the above statement. int x = r4; // r5 is constrained by lifetimes of 50 and 51. const int& r5 = f5(50, 51); // *Correctly* rejects usage of r5. The reference refers to one of the // two expired temporaries. This use would be a use-after-free. int y = r5; // r6 is constrained by the lifetime of 60. const int& r6 = f6(60); // *Incorrectly* rejects usage of r6. // The return reference r6 should not be constrained by the lifetime of 60. int z = r6; } Profiles take a similarly conservative approach to lifetimes as they do with aliasing. The lifetime of a returned reference is constrained by the lifetimes of all of its arguments. This is fortuitous for a function like std::min, which returns a reference to either of its function parameters. It's bad for a function like std::map:: operator[], which takes a key argument by reference but returns a reference that's only constrained by the lifetime of this. Since the compiler has no information about function parameter lifetimes, it can't accurately flag out-of-contract function calls. f4 and f6 take references to temporary objects but return references that should not be constrained to that temporary. In both cases, the safety profile rejects a subsequent use of the reference as a use-after-free, because it applies a too-conservative convention. The need for explicit lifetime information in function types is the motivation for Rust's lifetime arguments. A returned reference must be annotated with a lifetime parameter that is constrained by a function parameter on the same function, or it must be static. The alternative is to be deluged with an impossible quantity of use-after-free false positives. (Compiler Explorer) #include #include const int& f4(std::map& map, const int& key) { return map[key]; } int main() { std::map map; const int& ref = f4(map, 200); int x = ref; } :11:11: warning: dereferencing a dangling pointer [-Wlifetime] int x = ref; ^~~ :10:32: note: temporary was destroyed at the end of the full expression const int& ref = f4(map, 200); ^ The Safety Profiles reference implementation can't accurately deal with lifetimes because C++ doesn't provide lifetime information. The tool doesn't test for correctness, it only tests if your code conforms to a pre-chosen convention. 2.3 Inferring safeness We should not require a safe function annotation that has the semantics that a safe function can only call other safe functions. - (Re)affirm design principles for future C++ evolution[P3446R0] Recall what "safe" actually means: * A safe function has defined behavior for all valid inputs. * An unsafe function has soundness preconditions. Calling an unsafe function with out-of-contract inputs may result in undefined behavior. A C++ compiler can infer nothing about safeness from a function declaration. It can't by tell by looking what constitutes an out-of-contract call and what doesn't. A safe-specifier indicates the presence of soundness preconditions. An unsafe-block permits the user to escape the safe context, prove the preconditions, and call the unsafe function. template class vector { public: size_t size() const noexcept safe { return _len; } T& operator[](size_t index) noexcept safe { // Can call size() because it's a safe function. if(index >= size()) panic("Out-of-bounds vector::operator[]"); unsafe { // Pointer operations only allowed in unsafe context. // Safety proof: // The allocation has size() valid elements and index < size(). return _data[index]; } } private: T* _data; size_t _len, _cap; }; Let's take a really simple case: vector::operator[]. Profiles have to reject pointer arithmetic, because there's no static analysis protection against indexing past the end of the allocation. How is the compiler told to permit the raw pointer subscript in the return-statement in vector::operator[]? In Rust and Safe C++, enter an unsafe-block. This design distinguishes safe functions, which have no soundness preconditions and can be called from other safe functions, and unsafe functions, which require an unsafe-block escape to use, just like pointer operations. Separation of safe and unsafe functions is common in memory-safe languages. Rust and C#[csharp] include an unsafe function specifier and an unsafe-block construct. This is a human- and tooling-readable tag for auditing potential origins of soundness defects. Aliasing and lifetimes are transitive properties that must be recoverable from a function declaration in order to be upheld. Safeness (the lack of soundness preconditions) is another transitive property that must be marked in a function declaration. The way to do that is with a safe-specifier. template< class RandomIt > void sort( RandomIt first, RandomIt last ); Let's consider another example: the std::sort API that takes two random-access iterators. This is an unsafe function because it exhibits undefined behavior if called with the wrong arguments. But there's nothing in the type system to indicate that it has soundness preconditions, so the compiler doesn't know to reject calls in safe contexts. What are sort's preconditions? * The first and last iterators must point at elements from the same container. * first must not indicate an element that appears after last. * first and last may not be dangling iterators. In the absence of a enforced safeness information, it's up to the user to follow the documentation and satisfy the requirements. Guidance for calling unsafe functions is essentially "don't write bugs." void func(std::vector vec1, std::vector vec2) { // #1 - *Incorrectly* rejects correct call for mutable aliasing sort(vec1.begin(), vec1.end()); // #2 - *Incorrectly* permits out-of-contract call. sort(vec1.begin(), vec2.end()); } In the Profiles model, the correct call to sort #1 is rejected due to mutable aliasing. That's bad, but permitting the out-of-contract call #2 is worse, because it's a soundness bug. There's no realistic static analysis technology to verify that a call to sort meets its preconditions. Even the safety profile with the most conservative aliasing setting lets this call through. This is where safe and unsafe specifiers play an important role. From the caller's perspective, sort is unsafe because it has preconditions that must be upheld without the compiler's help. From the callee's perspective, sort is unsafe because it's written with unsafe operations. Pointer differencing computes a pivot for the sort, and pointer differencing is undefined when its operands point to different allocations. // No safe-specifier means unsafe. void sort(vector::iterator begin, vector::iterator end); // A safe-specifier means it can only call safe functions. void func(vector vec1, vector vec2) safe { // Ill-formed: sort is an unsafe function. // Averts potential undefined behavior. sort(vec1.begin(), vec2.end()); unsafe { // Well-formed: call unsafe function from unsafe context. // Safety proof: // sort requires both iterators point into the same container. // Here, they both point into vec1. sort(vec1.begin(), vec1.end()); } } The only way to enforce memory safety is to separate safe and unsafe functions with a safe-specifier. In this example, func is safe because it's defined for all valid inputs. It cannot call sort, because that has soundness preconditions: the two iterators must point into the same container. A call to sort in a safe context leaves the program ill-formed, because the compiler cannot guarantee that the preconditions are satisfied. But by entering an unsafe-block , the user can prove the preconditions and make the unsafe call without the compiler's soundness guarantees. [P3081R0] does float a [[suppress(profile)]] attribute to turn off certain Profiles checkes. It looks like the equivalent of an unsafe-block. It may permit pointer operations in a definition, but it doesn't address the other side of the call: without a safe-specifier, how does the Profiles design deal with functions like sort that are inherently unsafe? They must be separated from provably safe functions. User intervention, wrapped up in unsafe-blocks, is needed to satisfy their preconditions. Without this bump of impedance the language cannot guarantee safety, as the property that a safe functions contains no undefined behavior is not transitively upheld. (Compiler Explorer) #include #include #include int main() { std::vector v1, v2; v1.push_back(1); v2.push_back(2); // UB! std::sort(v1.end(), v2.end()); } Program returned: 139 double free or corruption (out) Program terminated with signal: SIGSEGV The Safety Profiles reference implementation can't deal with unsafe functions, because C++ doesn't know which functions are unsafe. This out-of-contract call produces a heap double-free and then segfaults. 3 Lifetime safety is static typing Do not add a feature that requires viral annotation. - (Re)affirm design principles for future C++ evolution[P3446R0] Rust's safety model incorporates lifetime arguments on every reference (or struct with reference semantics) that occurs in a function type. The authors of Profiles disparagingly call these "viral annotations." Don't be scared. C++ has always been full of viral annotations: types are viral annotations. Types establish type safety properties that are enforced by both the caller and callee. These properties are transitive (i.e. viral) because they're enforced through any number of function calls, creating a network of reasoning from the point where an object is created to all of its uses. Languages that treat types as viral annotations are statically-typed languages. Languages that don't are dynamically-typed languages. These have well-known trade-offs. Statically-typed languages exhibit higher performance and provide more information to developers; programs in a statically-typed language may be easier to reason about. Dynamically-typed languages are much simpler and can be more productive. Lifetime parameters, which provide crucial information to the compiler to enable rigorous safety analysis, defines another axis of typing. Rust has static lifetimes, which is a high-performance, high-information approach to memory safety. Users can reason about lifetimes and aliasing because those concepts are built into the language. The compiler has sufficient information to rigorously enforce lifetime safety with borrow checking. Most other memory-safe languages use dynamic lifetimes, of which garbage collection is an implementation. Instead of enforcing lifetimes and exclusivity at compile time, the garbage collector manages objects on the heap and extends their scope as long as there are live references to them. This has the same basic trade-off as dynamic typing: simplicity at the cost of performance. Static lifetimes Dynamic lifetimes Static types Rust Java, Go Dynamic types - Javascript, Python The static types/static lifetimes quadrant is a new area of language design, at least for languages widely used in production. The principles may be unfamiliar. Lifetime annotations feel different than type annotations because they establish relationships between parameters and return types rather than on individual parameters and objects. Instead of answering the question "What are the properties of this entity?" they answer "How does this entity relate to other entities?". Profiles fail because they reject, as a design principle, the specific language improvements that provide necessary lifetime information for compile-time safety. 4 Lifetime parameters don't cause soundness bugs Annotations are distracting, add verbosity, and some can be wrong (introducing the kind of errors they are assumed to help eliminate). - Profile invalidation - eliminating dangling pointers[P3446R0] This is not right. In a memory-safe language you can't introduce undefined behavior with mere coding mistakes. That's the whole point of memory safety. If you put the wrong lifetime annotation on a parameter, your program becomes ill-formed, not undefined. A mistaken use of lifetime parameters can be an ergonomics bug, or it can mask undefined behavior when wrapping an unsafe function in a safe interface, but it can't cause undefined behavior. (Compiler Explorer) fn f1<'a, 'b>(x:&'a i32, y:&'b i32) -> &'b i32 { return x; } error: lifetime may not live long enough --> lifetime1.rs:5:10 | 4 | fn f1<'a, 'b>(x:&'a i32, y:&'b i32) -> &'b i32 { | -- -- lifetime `'b` defined here | | | lifetime `'a` defined here 5 | return x; | ^ function was supposed to return data with lifetime `'b` but it is returning data with lifetime `'a` | = help: consider adding the following bound: `'a: 'b` Lifetime constraints are a contract between the caller and callee. If either side violates the contract, the program is ill-formed. In the code above, the lifetime constraints are violated by the callee. The lifetime of the x parameter does not outlive the lifetime of the returned reference. We used the wrong annotation, but instead of leading to undefined behavior, the compiler produces a detailed message that explains how the lifetime contract was not met. (Compiler Explorer) fn f2<'a, 'b>(x:&'a i32, y:&'b i32) -> &'b i32 { // Well-formed. The lifetime on y outlives the lifetime on // the return reference. return y; } fn f3() { let x = 1; let r:&i32; { let y = 2; r = f2(&x, &y); } // Ill-formed: r depends on y, which is out of scope. let z = *r; } error[E0597]: `y` does not live long enough --> lifetime2.rs:15:16 | 14 | let y = 2; | - binding `y` declared here 15 | r = f2(&x, &y); | ^^ borrowed value does not live long enough 16 | } | - `y` dropped here while still borrowed ... 19 | let z = *r; | -- borrow later used here Let's fix the implementation of the callee and test a broken version of the caller. The returned reference depends on y, but it's used after y goes out of scope. The compiler rejects the program and tells us "y does not live long enough." The use of lifetime annotations on parameters is the same as the use of type annotations on parameters: it turns an intractable whole-program analysis problem into an easy-to-enforce local-analysis problem. Lifetime annotations, which exist to guarantee safety, do not jeopardize safety. 5 C++ is too irregular for Profiles Do not add a feature that requires heavy annotation. "Heavy" means something like "more than 1 annotation per 1,000 lines of code." - (Re)affirm design principles for future C++ evolution[P3446R0] We have an implemented approach that requires near-zero annotation of existing source code. - Pursue [P1179R1] as a Lifetime TS[P3465R0] Central to Safety Profiles is the claim that annotations are exceptional rather than the norm. For this to be true, the great bulk of C++ would need to be written according to some preferred convention. [P1179R1] chooses "no mutable aliasing" and constrains reference return types to all reference parameters. Let's consider a number of Standard Library functions and compare their aliasing and exclusivity requirements to those conventions. Functions that don't adhere to these conventions must be annotated, and those annotations must be virally propagated up the stack to all callers, as aliasing and lifetime requirements are transitive. Only functions that have no soundness preconditions can be considered safe. Let's start in and work through alphabetically, indicating how functions deviate from the Safety Profile's aliasing and lifetime conventions: // Unsafe! // Precondition: `first` and `last` must alias. template< class InputIt, class UnaryPred > bool all_of( InputIt first, InputIt last, UnaryPred p ); template< class InputIt, class UnaryPred > bool any_of( InputIt first, InputIt last, UnaryPred p ); template< class InputIt, class UnaryPred > bool none_of( InputIt first, InputIt last, UnaryPred p ); // Unsafe! // Precondition 1: `first` and `last` must alias. // Lifetime: The return type is not constrained by the lifetime of `value` template< class InputIt, class T > InputIt find( InputIt first, InputIt last, const T& value ); template< class InputIt, class UnaryPred > InputIt find_if( InputIt first, InputIt last, UnaryPred p ); template< class InputIt, class UnaryPred > InputIt find_if_not( InputIt first, InputIt last, UnaryPred q ); // Unsafe! // Precondition 1: `first` and `last` must alias. // Precondition 2: `s_first` and `s_last` must alias. // Lifetime: The return type is not constrained by the lifetime of `s_first` // or `s_last`. template< class InputIt, class ForwardIt > InputIt find_first_of( InputIt first, InputIt last, ForwardIt s_first, ForwardIt s_last ); // Unsafe! // Precondition 1: `first` and `last` must alias. template< class ForwardIt > ForwardIt adjacent_find( ForwardIt first, ForwardIt last ); // Unsafe! // Precondition 1: `first1` and `last2` must alias. // Lifetime: The returned Input1 is constrained only by `first1` and `last1` // Lifetime: The returned Input2 is constrained only by `first2`. template< class InputIt1, class InputIt2 > std::pair mismatch( InputIt1 first1, InputIt1 last1, InputIt2 first2 ); // Unsafe! // Precondition 1: `first` and `last` must alias. // Precondition 2: `s_first` and `s_last` must alias. // Lifetime: The returned ForwardIt1 is constrained only by `first` and `last` template< class ForwardIt1, class ForwardIt2 > ForwardIt1 search( ForwardIt1 first, ForwardIt1 last, ForwardIt2 s_first, ForwardIt2 s_last ); The functions in mostly involve iterators which are inherently unsafe. Additionally, the lifetime convention chosen by Profiles is frequently wrong: the lifetime of a returned reference rarely is constrained by the lifetimes of all its parameters. You'd need annotations in all of these cases. Consider these conventions against the API for a container. Let's look at : // Aliasing: the `key` parameter may alias `*this`. // Lifetimes: the returned T& is only constrained by `*this` and not by `key`. T& map::at( const Key& key ); T& map::operator[]( const Key& key ); // Aliasing: the `key` parameter may alias `*this`. // Lifetimes: the returned iterator is only constrained by `*this` and not by // `value`. iterator map::find( const Key& key ); iterator map::lower_bound( const Key& key ); iterator map::upper_bound( const Key& key ); // Aliasing: the `value` parameter may alias `*this`. // Lifetimes: the returned iterator is only constrained by `*this` and not by // `value`. std::pair map::insert( const value_type& value ); // Unsafe! // Precondition 1: `pos` must point into `*this` // Aliasing: the `value` parameter may alias `*this` or `pos` // Lifetimes: The returned iterator is only constrained by `*this` and not by // `value`. iterator map::insert( iterator pos, const value_type& value ); // Aliasing: The `k` and `obj` parameters may alias `*this`. // Lifetimes: The returned iterator is only constrained by `*this` and not by // `k` or `value`. template< class M > std::pair map::insert_or_assign( const Key& k, M&& obj ) // Unsafe! // Precondition 1: `hint` must point into `*this` // Aliasing: The `k` and `obj` parameters may alias `*this` and `hint`. // Lifetimes: The returned iterator is only constrained by `*this` and not by // `k` or `value`. template< class M > iterator insert_or_assign( const_iterator hint, const Key& k, M&& obj ); This is only a few of the map APIs which would either be unsafe or require annotations in the Profiles model. The conservative aliasing rules gets most member functions wrong: a reference returned from a member function is typically constrained only by the *this/self parameter. That's what Rust's lifetime elision rules do. Regardless of the convention chosen, expect annotations every time the function does something different. With C++ code, it does something different very often. #include int main() { std::map m; m[1] = 2; // Temporary 1 expires. Profiles considers `value` a dangling reference. int& value = m[1]; // Profiles should flag this apparent use-after-free. value = 2; } Profile's inability to deal accurately with lifetimes means that an implementation would reject much valid code. In this example the subscript to map::operator[] is a temporary. It goes out of scope at the end of the statement. Under the Profile's conservative lifetime convention, the returned reference (stored in value) would be considered a dangling reference and the subsequent use would make the program ill-formed. I do not believe that C++ code, with its countless unstated soundness preconditions and inconsistent aliasing and lifetime requirements, can be made memory safe with fewer than "1 annotation per 1,000 lines of code." In fact, legacy C++ code will have many more annotations than equivalent Rust code. Rust often chooses object relocation to pass parameters by value rather than pass them by reference. This reduces the number of lifetime constraints that the system deals with. Additionally, it has simpler, safe versions of facilities which are unsafe in C++: the Rust iterator, for example, keeps both the data pointer and length in the same struct to completely alleviate the aliasing concerns that prevent safety analysis in C++. 5.1 C++ cannot enforce exclusivity The density of annotations required to vet existing code is not the biggest problem facing Profiles. C++ overload resolution has created a knot that cannot be untangled. Its standard conversion rules are one reason why C++ is considered inherently unsafe. For many accessor-style C++ APIs, there are two overloads: 1. A candidate that binds a const object and a returns a const reference (or pointer or iterator). 2. A candidate that binds a mutable object and returns a mutable reference (or pointer or iterator). If the mutable candidate can be chosen, it is chosen, no matter what the result object is used for. void f1(const int& x, const int& y); void f2(std::vector vec) { // The mutable overload of operator[] is called here. f1(vec[0], vec[1]); } This code will not pass an exclusivity test. vec is a mutable object, so vec[0] calls the mutable version of operator[] and produces a mutable reference result object. While that mutable loan is in scope (it remains in scope until f1 returns), vec[1] calls the mutable version of operator[] to produce its mutable reference result object. But you're not allowed more than one mutable reference to the same place. This is an exclusivity error! Rust avoids this problem in two ways: * In general there is no function overloading. As a convention, if there are mutable and const versions of a function, the mutable one is named with a _mut suffix. * There is syntax sugar which maps subscript operations to either index or index_mut. The latter is chosen in a mutable context, which is the left-hand side of an assignment. We can't ditch function overloading and remain C++. But we can change how overload resolution evaluates candidates. The standard conversion is responsible for binding references to expressions. C++ chooses the wrong (for safety purposes) subscript candidate because the standard conversion is able to bind mutable references to lvalue expressions. (Compiler Explorer) void f3(const int^ x, const int^ y) safe; int main() safe { std2::vector vec { }; // Okay. f3(vec[0], vec[1]); // Ill-formed: mutable borrow of vec between its mutable borrow and its use. f3(mut vec[0], mut vec[1]); } safety: during safety checking of int main() safe borrow checking: example.cpp:13:22 f3(mut vec[0], mut vec[1]); ^ mutable borrow of vec between its mutable borrow and its use loan created at example.cpp:13:10 f3(mut vec[0], mut vec[1]); ^ Safe C++ changes the standard conversion to work around this language defect. In this extension, standard conversions do not bind mutable references. vec[0] chooses the const candidate, which permits aliasing, and mut vec[0] chooses the mutable candidate, which does not. By opting in to mutation, you get aliasing by default. (Compiler Explorer) #feature on safety int main() safe { int x = 1; int^ ref = x; // Ill-formed! Can't bind mutable reference to lvalue. } error: example.cpp:5:14 int^ ref = x; ^ cannot implicitly bind borrow int^ to lvalue int The mut keyword[mutation] puts the subexpression into the mutable context and restores the restricted functionality. In the mutable context, the compiler will bind mutable references to expression: (Compiler Explorer) #feature on safety int main() safe { int x = 1; int^ ref = mut x; // Ok. Can bind mutable references in mutable context. } Now, the const overload of a function is chosen unless the user escapes with the mut keyword. This addresses a language defect head-on. What option does Profiles have? In its full generality, the mutable binding default makes for an exceptionally thorny analysis problem. Does Profiles replace calls to mutable candidates with calls to similarly-named const candidates? That's a presumption. Does it retroactively classify mutable loans as shared loans depending on usage? I'm not a soundness maverick. This is getting close to touching a live wire. Legacy C++ errs on the side of mutability, making it too unconstrained to test for soundness. Old code is what it is. 6 Carcinization The development of new product lines for use in service of critical infrastructure or NCFs (national critical functions) in a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++) ... is dangerous and significantly elevates risk to national security, national economic security, and national public health and safety. - CISA, Product Security Bad Practices[cisa] [P3466R0] insists that "we want to make sure C++ evolution ... hews to C++'s core principles." But these are bad principles. They make C++ extra vulnerable to memory safety defects that are prevented in memory-safe languages. The US Government implicates C++'s core principles as a danger to national security and public health. Static lifetimes Dynamic lifetimes Static types Rust Java, Go Dynamic types - Javascript, Python Reconsider this table. We want to evolve C++ to live in the static types/static lifetimes quadrant. Since Rust is the only species in that design family (at least among production languages), a new entry is necessarily going to resemble Rust (at least in its memory safety treatment) more than it does other languages. An earnest effort to pursue [P1179R1] as a Lifetime TS[P3465R0] will compromise on C++'s outdated and unworkable core principles and adopt mechanisms more like Rust's. In the compiler business this is called carcinization: a tendency of non-crab organisms to evolve crab-like features. * Standard C++ doesn't have aliasing information. We need a new reference type that upholds the "mutation XOR aliasing" rule as a program-wide invariant. * Standard C++ doesn't have lifetime information. We need lifetime parameters to indicate constraint relationships between function parameters and return references. * Safety is a transitive property. It has to be upheld with a safe-specifier on functions to establish the absence of soundness preconditions and an unsafe-block to call unsafe operations. * Lifetime constraints are a transitive property. They must be upheld by both caller and callee as viral annotations. * Lifetime constraints on functions do not follow any particular convention. Constraints that deviate from a default (such as the lifetime elision rules) require annotation, even heavy annotations that may exceed 1 per 1,000 lines of code. * The standard conversion rules make exclusivity enforcement impossible. We have to change the language default, establishing no implicit mutation in order to support aliasing in functions that take const references. 7 C++ in the future I think it is worth pursuing this compatible path first before, or at least at the same time as, trying to graft another foreign language's semantics onto C++ which turns C++ into "something else" and/or build an off-ramp from C++. - Pursue [P1179R1] as a Lifetime TS[P3465R0] Who does this provincialism serve? The latest Android security study "prioritizes transitioning to memory-safe languages."[ android-security] The off-ramp from C++ is an increasingly viable and attractive strategy for projects looking to reduce CVE exposure. The off-ramp is happening and its benefits are measurable. As the Android study observes, "once we turn off the tap of new vulnerabilities, they decrease exponentially, making all of our code safer." All focus should be on turning off the tap of new vulnerabilities. Incorporating Rust's safety model into C++ helps in two ways: 1. It provides an off-ramp from unsafe C++ to Safe C++ within a single toolchain. Projects can follow best practices for Safe Coding[safe-coding] without retraining the whole engineering staff in a new programming language. 2. It can hasten the migration to Rust by improving C++/Rust interop. By extending C++ with representations of all Rust constructs that can appear in function declarations (such as Rust enums, borrows and lifetimes, ZSTs, traits, etc) the number of common vocabulary types is greatly increased. This allows interop tooling to map between C++ and Rust declarations at a more expressive level than the current C-level API. C++ can be made memory safe, but not by dismissing everything that works, which is what the authors of Safety Profiles do. The language must evolve to be more explicit in how it expresses aliasing, lifetime and safeness properties. C++ can meet the security needs of its users, both in a principal role, and, for those projects determined to take the off-ramp, in an important supporting role. 8 References [android-security] Eliminating Memory Security Vulnerabilities at the Source. https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/ eliminating-memory-safety-vulnerabilities-Android.html?m=1 [cisa] Product Security Bad Practices. https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/ product-security-bad-practices [csharp] unsafe (C# Reference). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/ keywords/unsafe [mutation] https://safecpp.org/draft.html#explicit-mutation [P1179R1] Herb Sutter. 2019-11-22. Lifetime safety: Preventing common dangling. https://wg21.link/p1179r1 [P3081R0] Core safety Profiles" Specification, adoptability, and impact. https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3081R0.pdf [P3446R0] Profile invalidation - eliminating dangling pointers. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3446r0.pdf [P3465R0] Pursue P1179 as a Lifetime TS. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3465r0.pdf [P3466R0] (Re)affirm design principles for future C++ evolution. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3466r0.pdf [safe-coding] Secure by Design: Google's Perspective on Memory Safety. https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/ 7665.pdf [type-and-resource-safety-2015] A brief introduction to C++"s model for type- and resource- safety. https://www.stroustrup.com/resource-model.pdf