[vitalyd]

Ok, that's what I figured - thanks.

That does bring up the question, though, whether it's correct to say that a Sync type doesn't permit data races. In the example I gave above, publishing a Sync struct incorrectly can exhibit data race like symptoms on the receiving thread. So even though the type itself is Sync, that's not enough of a guarantee in the face of "unsafe" publication.

[dbaupp]

In safe Rust, sharing a value of any Sync type between threads can't result in data races. Send and Sync provide thread safety guarantees about types that other safe abstractions can rely upon, and fencing correctly is one of the things those abstractions have to do to be safe.

I guess "Sync types don't have data races" is the abbreviated version of "Sync types don't have data races in any safe code, no matter how weird and wonderful". That said, this qualification doesn't seem very interesting to me: something equivalent is required about pretty much any statement about any guarantee in any language with unsafe code or FFI (e.g. in Python, something along the lines of "pointers don't dangle in any code that doesn't use `ctypes`"), and thus is elided in a lot of discussions about programming languages.

If you consider `unsafe` Rust, then failing to fence correctly is just one way to get a data race.

[burntsushi]

It is a guarantee---or else it's a bug (which is the same as every other safe foundation). A type T gets to be `Sync` in one of two ways:

  1. It is "auto derived" when all of its constituent types are Sync.

  2. It is explicitly implemented using `unsafe impl Sync for T {}`. Note the use of the `unsafe` keyword.

[vitalyd]

Right, but my question isn't about T itself, but rather how it's published to another thread. The example I gave is of a plain struct with no atomics or any other synchronization types internally. A &T is auto-derived to be Sync. But, if a publisher incorrectly publishes this reference, the other thread may see a partially initialized value.

[GolDDranks]

It's the responsibility of the code that transfers the reference to another thread to ensure that. Deep down, past the abstractions, you can't transfer stuff between threads without using unsafe code. It's the responsibility of this unsafe code to ensure that if the value is visible from another thread, all the writes in the current thread have completed before it's visible. One can do this using memory fences.

[Manishearth]

There are three ways of sharing data across threads.

One is by sharing the data with the thread when it is spawned via a closure. Spawning will fence. No problem there.

The second is to use a good 'ol Sender/Receiver channel pair. These are effectively a shared ring buffer that you can push to and pop from. They also have a fence somewhere.

Finally, you can stick your data into a mutex shared between threads (and let the other thread wait and read it). This will IIRC fence, or do something equivalent.

You can of course build your own ways to do this, but they will need unsafe code to be built (the three APIs above are also built with unsafe code). It is up to you to ensure you handle the fences right when doing this.

The responsibility here is on the publishing mechanism. Most folks use one of the three ways above using primitives from the stdlib depending on the use case.

[vitalyd]

Yeah, I understand and what I expected to be the answer. My point is that when people talk about Sync not allowing data races, there's the asterisk attached to that statement. That footnote is that publishing code, which is completely separate from the type itself, needs to uphold its responsibility. Unsafe code is usually discussed in light of raw pointers and more generally raw memory ops, but I rarely see this aspect mentioned.

[burntsushi]

My point above was subtle but important: the asterisk you're mentioning here is not specific to Sync. This is true of all safety guarantees in Rust. unsafe code must uphold the invariants that safe code will rely on, otherwise it's buggy. For example, if the implementation of `Vec<T>` accidentally got its internal `length` out-of-sync with the data on the heap, then nothing bad in and of itself necessarily happens immediately. The bad thing only happens the next time you try to do something with the `Vec<T>`, which will be in safe code.

The safety of things in Rust is built on abstraction. If abstraction gets something wrong in its `unsafe` details, then there is a bug there. In other words, the asterisk you're mentioning is "You can trust that safe Rust is free of memory safety, unless there are bugs." I feel like that's discussed and acknowledged quite a bit.

> Unsafe code is usually discussed in light of raw pointers and more generally raw memory ops, but I rarely see this aspect mentioned.

I guess I don't see a difference. The safeness of Rust code depends on the correct use of `unsafe`, and this applies to everything, not just Sync.

This idea of `unsafe` being "trusted code" is one of the first things that the Rustonomicon covers: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/safe-unsafe-meaning.html

[vitalyd]

> I guess I don't see the difference

At a high and general level, yeah, it's all "unsafe". But, most conversations about unsafe don't talk about this aspect. So while what you say is true, I'm merely pointing out that this concurrency aspect doesn't seem to be mentioned much. And while it's implied at a high level, I think it's worth mentioning.

Basically, there's no issue - I just think this should be called out more when concurrency is discussed.