`Send` and `Sync`

[Skepfyr]

See prior discussion on IRLO here.

Send and Sync are defined in the 'nomicon as:

• A type is Send if it is safe to send it to another thread.
• A type is Sync if it is safe to share between threads (T is Sync if and only if &T is Send).

I'm reasonably happy that the definition for Sync is clear and unambiguous, however Send feels less obvious.

I think the definition of Send we had in that thread is:
A type is Send if it is safe to transfer ownership or give an exclusive reference to any other thread.

I ended up changing that sentence less than I expected because it's technically correct but not very useful, I think explaining what unsafe code is allowed to do would help clarify.

Some examples of things that this definition allows unsafe code to do with non-Send types:

• Store them on the stack of a different thread
• Read and write to them on any thread
• Match on a Wrapper<T> and extract the T (as long as it's careful to avoid drop, panic, etc)

[thomcc]

Yeah, I've often thought Send was a bit over-broad — I think !Send types are in a couple categories:

1. Types that really genuinely cannot be sent to another thread, ever ever. This is the rarest kind, IME, and is perfectly reflected by !Send.

2. Types which need to be destroyed on the thread where they were created (more generally, have some methods that must be executed on a specific thread, but the common case here is destruction, e.g. in the case of pthread mutex guards).

3. Types which must not outlive the thread upon which they were created, usually because they hold a pointer to some thread local data (which will be freed when the creating thread is destroyed).

[Skepfyr]

1. Types that really genuinely cannot be sent to another thread, ever ever. This is the rarest kind, IME, and is perfectly reflected by !Send.

Are there actually any types that fall in this category? I've been asking around for a while about whether these types exist as they'd make my library unsound but so far no-one has come up with an example.

[thomcc]

I think it would have to include user-created invariants. A common case might be "This is a 'token' type which enforces an extremely thread-unsafe C library is only used from one thread" (because all operations take token as an argument, etc).

What does your library do? I kind of suspect it is likely unsound.

[Skepfyr]

It's here: https://crates.io/crates/diplomatic-bag

It wraps up !Send types in a Send wrapper, all operations on that wrapper are run on a shared thread, so from safe code it's never possible to access the inner type except for on that shared thread.

[thomcc]

Ah, I withdraw my comment, that seems sound, but I don't understand how types in case 1 would make the library unsound

[Skepfyr]

The point I'm claiming is that all types can be sent to any thread as long as safe code can't access it (and unsafe code doesn't break whatever invariant makes that type !Send). That library keeps things useful by having a way to send them back to the thread where they were created.

[Lokathor]

That would be unsound in the presence of some GUI things :/

[Skepfyr]

Oooh, exciting, can you elaborate?

[Lokathor]

on mac the gui must only be altered from the main thread. specifically the main thread is magical, you can't run the gui in some other side thread.

Though, reading the diplomatic bag docs more closely i think it wouldn't make things more UB than normal.

[Diggsey]

@Lokathor "altering the gui" would constitute calling a method on the !Send type, and would therefore fall under category (2) not category (1).

@thomcc I think it's causing some confusion because you focused on destructors in (2) whereas it is very common for all methods to be unsound if called from another thread (eg. Rc<T> cannot be cloned).

By your original definition (1) is completely impossible in all cases but one that I can think of. The reason for this is that "moving" a value is always a simple memory copy in Rust, and so can have no side effects. All other things you could do with a !Send value would involve method calls (even if they are implicit like with Drop).

The one case I can think of is if you implemented a Boehm-style conservative garbage collector which uses separate heaps for each thread. In that case, the GC could expect to scan a thread's stack to find all roots into that thread's heap. If the value had been moved to another thread's stack, then the GC would not find it, and could believe its target memory to be unreachable.

[Lokathor]

I agree that type1 doesn't exist. As you say, raw bytes can be sent anywhere, it's code that can't be executed anywhere.

[thomcc]

Right, the mere existence of the type being elsewhere isn't a problem (admittedly, the CGC case is an interesting counterexample... but it's probably(?) out of scope of consideration).

I more meant that you can't generally know what code will do in response to witnessing a !Send type on a thread other than its creation thread — it could easily be unsound.

[RalfJung]

I'm reasonably happy that the definition for Sync is clear and unambiguous, however Send feels less obvious.

That's funny -- their definition, when captured formally, is almost exactly the same, and in particular there is perfect duality between them. We should not change one of them without also changing the other, to ensure that this symmetry remains intact. :)

I have attempted to give an informal description of our formal model in the IRLO thread.

There also was a comment about validity invariants somewhere -- I'd say that the "validity invariant" that corresponds loosely to these traits is "data races are UB". But other than that, Send and Sync are library-only concepts.

@Skepfyr

Are there actually any types that fall in this category? I've been asking around for a while about whether these types exist as they'd make my library unsound but so far no-one has come up with an example.

Rc is a perfect example of a !Send type. It's safety invariant only holds in one particular thread (namely the thread that is allowed to non-atomically read and write the reference count).

The point I'm claiming is that all types can be sent to any thread as long as safe code can't access it (and unsafe code doesn't break whatever invariant makes that type !Send). That library keeps things useful by having a way to send them back to the thread where they were created.

I mean, bytes are untyped, so you can do whatever you want with these bytes -- including sending them to another thread. It's not the data that cares about the thread, it's the safe typed methods that work on the data -- for example, all methods that take an Rc assume that they are called in the thread that the Rc is "tied to". That is what !Send means.

@thomcc

the CGC case is an interesting counterexample

I could not figure out what "CGC" refers to here, could you please add a link to that example?

[Skepfyr]

@RalfJung

That's funny -- their definition, when captured formally, is almost exactly the same, and in particular there is perfect duality between them. We should not change one of them without also changing the other, to ensure that this symmetry remains intact. :)

The definition "T is Sync iff &T is Send" is probably why I find the Sync definition fine but the send one not. Sync is currently defined in terms of Send, so changing Send will automatically change Sync.

I mean, bytes are untyped, so you can do whatever you want with these bytes -- including sending them to another thread. It's not the data that cares about the thread, it's the safe typed methods that work on the data -- for example, all methods that take an Rc assume that they are called in the thread that the Rc is "tied to". That is what !Send means.

That's essentially what I've been driving towards, and clearly being a bit unclear on. Although appears to have a counter example below.

I could not figure out what "CGC" refers to here, could you please add a link to that example?

This is referring to @Diggsey's counter example above:

The one case I can think of is if you implemented a Boehm-style conservative garbage collector which uses separate heaps for each thread. In that case, the GC could expect to scan a thread's stack to find all roots into that thread's heap. If the value had been moved to another thread's stack, then the GC would not find it, and could believe its target memory to be unreachable.

[RalfJung]

A GC with that assumption would be wrong also in every concurrent C program that ever moves any pointer from one thread to another -- so I think that's just a false assumption for the GC to make.