How to allocate buffer for C library call - rust

The question is not new and there are two approaches, as far as I can tell:
Use Vec<T>, as suggested here
Manage the heap memory yourself, using std::alloc::alloc, as shown here
My question is whether these are indeed the two (good) alternatives.
Just to make this perfectly clear: Both approaches work. The question is whether there is another, maybe preferred way. The example below is introduced to identify where use of Vec is not good, and where other approaches therefore may be better.
Let's state the problem: Suppose there's a C library that requires some buffer to write into. This could be a compression library, for example. It is easiest to have Rust allocate the heap memory and manage it instead of allocating in C/C++ with malloc/new and then somehow passing ownership to Rust.
Let's go with the compression example. If the library allows incremental (streaming) compression, then I would need a buffer that keeps track of some offset.
Following approach 1 (that is: "abuse" Vec<T>) I would wrap Vec and use len and capacity for my purposes:
/// `Buffer` is basically a Vec
pub struct Buffer<T>(Vec<T>);
impl<T> Buffer<T> {
/// Create new buffer of length `len`
pub fn new(len: usize) -> Self {
Buffer(Vec::with_capacity(len))
}
/// Return length of `Buffer`
pub fn len(&self) -> usize {
return self.0.len()
}
/// Return total allocated size of `Buffer`
pub fn capacity(&self) -> usize {
return self.0.capacity()
}
/// Return remaining length of `Buffer`
pub fn remaining(&self) -> usize {
return self.0.capacity() - self.len()
}
/// Increment the offset
pub fn increment(&mut self, by:usize) {
unsafe { self.0.set_len(self.0.len()+by); }
}
/// Returns an unsafe mutable pointer to the buffer
pub fn as_mut_ptr(&mut self) -> *mut T {
unsafe { self.0.as_mut_ptr().add(self.0.len()) }
}
/// Returns ref to `Vec<T>` inside `Buffer`
pub fn as_vec(&self) -> &Vec<T> {
&self.0
}
}
The only interesting functions are increment and as_mut_ptr.
Buffer would be used like this
fn main() {
// allocate buffer for compressed data
let mut buf: Buffer<u8> = Buffer::new(1024);
loop {
// perform C function call
let compressed_len: usize = compress(some_input, buf.as_mut_ptr(), buf.remaining());
// increment
buf.increment(compressed_len);
}
// get Vec inside buf
let compressed_data = buf.as_vec();
}
Buffer<T> as shown here is clearly dangerous, for example if any reference type is used. Even T=bool may result in undefined behaviour. But the problems with uninitialised instance of T can be avoided by introducing a trait that limits the possible types T.
Also, if alignment matters, then Buffer<T> is not a good idea.
But otherwise, is such a Buffer<T> really the best way to do this?
There doesn't seem to be an out-of-the box solution. The bytes crate comes close, it offers a "container for storing and operating on contiguous slices of memory", but the interface is not flexible enough.

You absolutely can use a Vec's spare capacity as to write into manually. That is why .set_len() is available. However, compress() must know that the given pointer is pointing to uninitialized memory and thus is not allowed to read from it (unless written to first) and you must guarantee that the returned length is the number of bytes initialized. I think these rules are roughly the same between Rust and C or C++ in this regard.
Writing this in Rust would look like this:
pub struct Buffer<T>(Vec<T>);
impl<T> Buffer<T> {
pub fn new(len: usize) -> Self {
Buffer(Vec::with_capacity(len))
}
/// SAFETY: `by` must be less than or equal to `space_len()` and the bytes at
/// `space_ptr_mut()` to `space_ptr_mut() + by` must be initialized
pub unsafe fn increment(&mut self, by: usize) {
self.0.set_len(self.0.len() + by);
}
pub fn space_len(&self) -> usize {
self.0.capacity() - self.0.len()
}
pub fn space_ptr_mut(&mut self) -> *mut T {
unsafe { self.0.as_mut_ptr().add(self.0.len()) }
}
pub fn as_vec(&self) -> &Vec<T> {
&self.0
}
}
unsafe fn compress(_input: i32, ptr: *mut u8, len: usize) -> usize {
// right now just writes 5 bytes if there's space for them
let written = usize::min(5, len);
for i in 0..written {
ptr.add(i).write(0);
}
written
}
fn main() {
let mut buf: Buffer<u8> = Buffer::new(1024);
let some_input = 5i32;
unsafe {
let compressed_len: usize = compress(some_input, buf.space_ptr_mut(), buf.space_len());
buf.increment(compressed_len);
}
let compressed_data = buf.as_vec();
println!("{:?}", compressed_data);
}
You can see it on the playground. If you run it through Miri, you'll see it picks up no undefined behavior, but if you over-advertise how much you've written (say return written + 10) then it does produce an error that reading uninitialized memory was detected.
One of the reasons there isn't an out-of-the-box type for this is because Vec is that type:
fn main() {
let mut buf: Vec<u8> = Vec::with_capacity(1024);
let some_input = 5i32;
let spare_capacity = buf.spare_capacity_mut();
unsafe {
let compressed_len: usize = compress(
some_input,
spare_capacity.as_mut_ptr().cast(),
spare_capacity.len(),
);
buf.set_len(buf.len() + compressed_len);
}
println!("{:?}", buf);
}
Your Buffer type doesn't really add any convenience or safety and a third-party crate can't do so because it relies on the correctness of compress().
Is such a Buffer really the best way to do this?
Yes, this is pretty much the lowest cost ways to provide a buffer for writing. Looking at the generated release assembly, it is just one call to allocate and that's it. You can get tricky by using a special allocator or simply pre-allocate and reuse allocations if you're doing this many times (but be sure to measure since the built-in allocator will do this anyway, just more generally).

Related

Best way to read a raw struct from a file

Background (Skippable)
On linux, the file /var/run/utmp contains several utmp structures, each in raw binary format, following each other in a file. utmp itself is a relatively large (384 bytes on my machine). I am trying to read this file to it's raw data, and them implement checks after the fact that the data makes sense. I'm not new to rust, but this is my first real experience with the unsafe side of things.
Problem Statement
I have a file that contains several c sturct utmps (docs). In rust, I would like to read the entire file into an array of Vec<libc::utmpx>. More specifically, given a reader open to this file, how could I read one struct utmp?
What I have so far
Below are three different implementations of read_raw, which accepts a reader and returns a RawEntry(my alias for struct utmp). Which method is most correct? I am trying to write as performant code as possible, and I am worried that read_raw0 might be slower than the others if it involves memcpys. What is the best/fastest way to accomplish this behavior?
use std::io::Read;
use libc::utmpx as RawEntry;
const RawEntrySize = std::mem::size_of::<RawEntry>();
type RawEntryBuffer = [u8; RawEntrySize];
/// Read a raw utmpx struct
// After testing, this method doesn't work
pub fn read_raw0<R: Read>(reader: &mut R) -> RawEntry {
let mut entry: RawEntry = unsafe { std::mem::zeroed() };
unsafe {
let mut entry_buf = std::mem::transmute::<RawEntry, RawEntryBuffer>(entry);
reader.read_exact(&mut entry_buf[..]);
}
return entry;
}
/// Read a raw utmpx struct
pub fn read_raw1<R: Read>(reader: &mut R) -> RawEntry {
// Worried this could cause alignment issues, or maybe it's okay
// because transmute copies
let mut buffer: RawEntryBuffer = [0; RawEntrySize];
reader.read_exact(&mut buffer[..]);
let entry = unsafe {
std::mem::transmute::<RawEntryBuffer, RawEntry>(buffer)
};
return entry;
}
/// Read a raw utmpx struct
pub fn read_raw2<R: Read>(reader: &mut R) -> RawEntry {
let mut entry: RawEntry = unsafe { std::mem::zeroed() };
unsafe {
let entry_ptr = std::mem::transmute::<&mut RawEntry, *mut u8>(&mut entry);
let entry_slice = std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut(entry_ptr, RawEntrySize);
reader.read_exact(entry_slice);
}
return entry;
}
Note: After more testing, it appears read_raw0 doesn't work. I believe this is because transmute creates a new buffer instead of referencing the struct.
This is what I came up with, which I imagine should be about as fast as it gets to read a single entry. It follows the spirit of your last entry, but avoids the transmute (Transmuting &mut T to *mut u8 can be done with two casts: t as *mut T as *mut u8). Also it uses MaybeUninit instead of zeroed to be a bit more explicit (The assembly is likely the same once optimized). Lastly, the function will be unsafe either way, so we may as well mark it as such and do away with the unsafe blocks.
use std::io::{self, Read};
use std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut;
use std::mem::{MaybeUninit, size_of};
pub unsafe fn read_raw_struct<R: Read, T: Sized>(src: &mut R) -> io::Result<T> {
let mut buffer = MaybeUninit::uninit();
let buffer_slice = from_raw_parts_mut(buffer.as_mut_ptr() as *mut u8, size_of::<T>());
src.read_exact(buffer_slice)?;
Ok(buffer.assume_init())
}

How do I allocate a Vec<u8> that is aligned to the size of the cache line?

I need to allocate a buffer for reading from a File, but this buffer must be aligned to the size of the cache line (64 bytes). I am looking for a function somewhat like this for Vec:
pub fn with_capacity_and_aligned(capacity: usize, alignment: u8) -> Vec<T>
which would give me the 64 byte alignment that I need. This obviously doesn't exist, but there might be some equivalences (i.e. "hacks") that I don't know about.
So, when I use this function (which will give me the desired alignment), I could write this code safely:
#[repr(C)]
struct Header {
magic: u32,
some_data1: u32,
some_data2: u64,
}
let cache_line_size = 64; // bytes
let buffer: Vec<u8> = Vec::<u8>::with_capacity_and_alignment(some_size, cache_line_size);
match file.read_to_end(&mut buffer) {
Ok(_) => {
let header: Header = {
// and since the buffer is aligned to 64 bytes, I wont get any SEGFAULT
unsafe { transmute(buffer[0..(size_of::<Header>())]) }
};
}
}
and not get any panics because of alignment issues (like launching an instruction).
You can enforce the alignment of a type to a certain size using #[repr(align(...))]. We also use repr(C) to ensure that this type has the same memory layout as an array of bytes.
You can then create a vector of the aligned type and transform it to a vector of appropriate type:
use std::mem;
#[repr(C, align(64))]
struct AlignToSixtyFour([u8; 64]);
unsafe fn aligned_vec(n_bytes: usize) -> Vec<u8> {
// Lazy math to ensure we always have enough.
let n_units = (n_bytes / mem::size_of::<AlignToSixtyFour>()) + 1;
let mut aligned: Vec<AlignToSixtyFour> = Vec::with_capacity(n_units);
let ptr = aligned.as_mut_ptr();
let len_units = aligned.len();
let cap_units = aligned.capacity();
mem::forget(aligned);
Vec::from_raw_parts(
ptr as *mut u8,
len_units * mem::size_of::<AlignToSixtyFour>(),
cap_units * mem::size_of::<AlignToSixtyFour>(),
)
}
There are no guarantees that the Vec<u8> will remain aligned if you reallocate the data. This means that you cannot reallocate so you will need to know how big to allocate up front.
The function is unsafe for the same reason. When the type is dropped, the memory must be back to its original allocation, but this function cannot control that.
Thanks to BurntSushi5 for corrections and additions.
See also:
How can I align a struct to a specifed byte boundary?
Align struct to cache lines in Rust
How do I convert a Vec<T> to a Vec<U> without copying the vector?
Because of the limitations and unsafety above, another potential idea would be to allocate a big-enough buffer (maybe with some wiggle room), and then use align_to to get a properly aligned chunk. You could use the same AlignToSixtyFour type as above, and then convert the &[AlignToSixtyFour] into a &[u8] with similar logic.
This technique could be used to give out (optionally mutable) slices that are aligned. Since they are slices, you don't have to worry about the user reallocating or dropping them. This would allow you to wrap it up in a nicer type.
All that being said, I think that relying on alignment here is inappropriate for your actual goal of reading a struct from a file. Simply read the bytes (u32, u32, u64) and build the struct:
use byteorder::{LittleEndian, ReadBytesExt}; // 1.3.4
use std::{fs::File, io};
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Header {
magic: u32,
some_data1: u32,
some_data2: u64,
}
impl Header {
fn from_reader(mut reader: impl io::Read) -> Result<Self, Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let magic = reader.read_u32::<LittleEndian>()?;
let some_data1 = reader.read_u32::<LittleEndian>()?;
let some_data2 = reader.read_u64::<LittleEndian>()?;
Ok(Self {
magic,
some_data1,
some_data2,
})
}
}
fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let mut f = File::open("/etc/hosts")?;
let header = Header::from_reader(&mut f)?;
println!("{:?}", header);
Ok(())
}
See also:
How to read a struct from a file in Rust?
Is this the most natural way to read structs from a binary file?
Can I take a byte array and deserialize it into a struct?
Transmuting u8 buffer to struct in Rust

Is it undefined behavior to do runtime borrow management with the help of raw pointers in Rust?

As part of binding a C API to Rust, I have a mutable reference ph: &mut Ph, a struct struct EnsureValidContext<'a> { ph: &'a mut Ph }, and some methods:
impl Ph {
pub fn print(&mut self, s: &str) {
/*...*/
}
pub fn with_context<F, R>(&mut self, ctx: &Context, f: F) -> Result<R, InvalidContextError>
where
F: Fn(EnsureValidContext) -> R,
{
/*...*/
}
/* some others */
}
impl<'a> EnsureValidContext<'a> {
pub fn print(&mut self, s: &str) {
self.ph.print(s)
}
pub fn close(self) {}
/* some others */
}
I don't control these. I can only use these.
Now, the closure API is nice if you want the compiler to force you to think about performance (and the tradeoffs you have to make between performance and the behaviour you want. Context validation is expensive). However, let's say you just don't care about that and want it to just work.
I was thinking of making a wrapper that handles it for you:
enum ValidPh<'a> {
Ph(&'a mut Ph),
Valid(*mut Ph, EnsureValidContext<'a>),
Poisoned,
}
impl<'a> ValidPh<'a> {
pub fn print(&mut self) {
/* whatever the case, just call .print() on the inner object */
}
pub fn set_context(&mut self, ctx: &Context) {
/*...*/
}
pub fn close(&mut self) {
/*...*/
}
/* some others */
}
This would work by, whenever necessary, checking if we're a Ph or a Valid, and if we're a Ph we'd upgrade to a Valid by going:
fn upgrade(&mut self) {
if let Ph(_) = self { // don't call mem::replace unless we need to
if let Ph(ph) = mem::replace(self, Poisoned) {
let ptr = ph as *mut _;
let evc = ph.with_context(ph.get_context(), |evc| evc);
*self = Valid(ptr, evc);
}
}
}
Downgrading is different for each method, as it has to call the target method, but here's an example close:
pub fn close(&mut self) {
if let Valid(_, _) = self {
/* ok */
} else {
self.upgrade()
}
if let Valid(ptr, evc) = mem::replace(self, Invalid) {
evc.close(); // consume the evc, dropping the borrow.
// we can now use our original borrow, but since we don't have it anymore, bring it back using our trusty ptr
*self = unsafe { Ph(&mut *ptr) };
} else {
// this can only happen due to a bug in our code
unreachable!();
}
}
You get to use a ValidPh like:
/* given a &mut vph */
vph.print("hello world!");
if vph.set_context(ctx) {
vph.print("closing existing context");
vph.close();
}
vph.print("opening new context");
vph.open("context_name");
vph.print("printing in new context");
Without vph, you'd have to juggle &mut Ph and EnsureValidContext around on your own. While the Rust compiler makes this trivial (just follow the errors), you may want to let the library handle it automatically for you. Otherwise you might end up just calling the very expensive with_context for every operation, regardless of whether the operation can invalidate the context or not.
Note that this code is rough pseudocode. I haven't compiled or tested it yet.
One might argue I need an UnsafeCell or a RefCell or some other Cell. However, from reading this it appears UnsafeCell is only a lang item because of interior mutability — it's only necessary if you're mutating state through an &T, while in this case I have &mut T all the way.
However, my reading may be flawed. Does this code invoke UB?
(Full code of Ph and EnsureValidContext, including FFI bits, available here.)
Taking a step back, the guarantees upheld by Rust are:
&T is a reference to T which is potentially aliased,
&mut T is a reference to T which is guaranteed not to be aliased.
The crux of the question therefore is: what does guaranteed not to be aliased means?
Let's consider a safe Rust sample:
struct Foo(u32);
impl Foo {
fn foo(&mut self) { self.bar(); }
fn bar(&mut self) { *self.0 += 1; }
}
fn main() { Foo(0).foo(); }
If we take a peek at the stack when Foo::bar is being executed, we'll see at least two pointers to Foo: one in bar and one in foo, and there may be further copies on the stack or in other registers.
So, clearly, there are aliases in existence. How come! It's guaranteed NOT to be aliased!
Take a deep breath: how many of those aliases can you access at the time?
Only 1. The guarantee of no aliasing is not spatial but temporal.
I would think, therefore, that at any point in time, if a &mut T is accessible, then no other reference to this instance must be accessible.
Having a raw pointer (*mut T) is perfectly fine, it requires unsafe to access; however forming a second reference may or may not be safe, even without using it, so I would avoid it.
Rust's memory model is not rigorously defined yet, so it's hard to say for sure, but I believe it's not undefined behavior to:
carry a *mut Ph around while a &'a mut Ph is also reachable from another path, so long as you don't dereference the *mut Ph, even just for reading, and don't convert it to a &Ph or &mut Ph, because mutable references grant exclusive access to the pointee.
cast the *mut Ph back to a &'a mut Ph once the other &'a mut Ph falls out of scope.

Drop a Rust void pointer stored in an FFI

I'm wrapping a C API which allows the caller to set/get an arbitrary pointer via function calls. In this way, the C API allows a caller to associate arbitrary data with one of the C API objects. This data is not used in any callbacks, it's just a pointer that a user can stash away and get at later.
My wrapper struct implements the Drop trait for the C object that contains this pointer. What I'd like to be able to do, but am not sure it's possible, is have the data dropped correctly if the pointer is not null when the wrapper struct drops. I'm not sure how I would recover the correct type though from a raw c_void pointer.
Two alternatives I'm thinking of are
Implement the behavior of these two calls in the wrapper. Don't make any calls to the C API.
Don't attempt to offer any kind of safer interface to these functions. Document that the pointer must be managed by the caller of the wrapper.
Is what I want to do possible? If not, is there a generally accepted practice for these kinds of situations?
A naive + fully automatic approach is NOT possible for the following reasons:
freeing memory does not call drop/deconstructors/...: the C API can be used from languages which can have objects which should be deconstructed properly, e.g. C++ or Rust itself. So when you only store a memory pointer you do not know you to call the proper function (you neither know which function not how the calling conventions look like).
which memory allocator?: memory allocation and deallocation isn't a trivial thing. your program needs to request memory from the OS and then manage this resources in an intelligent way to be efficient and correct. This is usually done by a library. In case of Rust, jemalloc is used (but can be changed). So even when you ask the API caller to only pass Plain Old Data (which should be easier to destruct) you still don't know which library function to call to deallocate memory. Just using libc::free won't work (it can but it could horrible fail).
Solutions:
dealloc callback: you can ask the API user to set an additional pointer to, let's say a void destruct(void* ptr) function. If this one is not NULL, you call that function during your drop. You could also use int as an return type to signal when the destruction went wrong. In that case you could for example panic!.
global callback: let's assume you requested your user to only pass POD (plain old data). To know which free function of the memory allocator to call, you could request the user to register a global void (*free)(void* ptr) pointer which is called during drop. You could also make that one optional.
Although I was able to follow the advice in this thread, I wasn't entirely satisfied with my results, so I asked the question on the Rust forums and found the answer I was really looking for. (play)
use std::any::Any;
static mut foreign_ptr: *mut () = 0 as *mut ();
unsafe fn api_set_fp(ptr: *mut ()) {
foreign_ptr = ptr;
}
unsafe fn api_get_fp() -> *mut() {
foreign_ptr
}
struct ApiWrapper {}
impl ApiWrapper {
fn set_foreign<T: Any>(&mut self, value: Box<T>) {
self.free_foreign();
unsafe {
let raw = Box::into_raw(Box::new(value as Box<Any>));
api_set_fp(raw as *mut ());
}
}
fn get_foreign_ref<T: Any>(&self) -> Option<&T> {
unsafe {
let raw = api_get_fp() as *const Box<Any>;
if !raw.is_null() {
let b: &Box<Any> = &*raw;
b.downcast_ref()
} else {
None
}
}
}
fn get_foreign_mut<T: Any>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut T> {
unsafe {
let raw = api_get_fp() as *mut Box<Any>;
if !raw.is_null() {
let b: &mut Box<Any> = &mut *raw;
b.downcast_mut()
} else {
None
}
}
}
fn free_foreign(&mut self) {
unsafe {
let raw = api_get_fp() as *mut Box<Any>;
if !raw.is_null() {
Box::from_raw(raw);
}
}
}
}
impl Drop for ApiWrapper {
fn drop(&mut self) {
self.free_foreign();
}
}
struct MyData {
i: i32,
}
impl Drop for MyData {
fn drop(&mut self) {
println!("Dropping MyData with value {}", self.i);
}
}
fn main() {
let p1 = Box::new(MyData {i: 1});
let mut api = ApiWrapper{};
api.set_foreign(p1);
{
let p2 = api.get_foreign_ref::<MyData>().unwrap();
println!("i is {}", p2.i);
}
api.set_foreign(Box::new("Hello!"));
{
let p3 = api.get_foreign_ref::<&'static str>().unwrap();
println!("payload is {}", p3);
}
}

Adding lifetime constraints to non-reference types

I am trying to figure out how to apply Rust lifetimes to add some compile-time enforcement to Erlang NIF modules. NIF modules are shared libraries normally written in C that provide extensions.
A simplified prototype of the callback you would write in C looks like this:
Handle my_nif_function(Heap *heap, Handle handle);
You are provided a handle and a pointer to the heap that owns it. In your callback you may inspect the input handle, create more handles on the heap, and return one of them as the function return. The heap and all its handles become invalid after your callback returns, so you must not store copies of the heap or its handles during the callback. Unfortunately I’ve seen people do exactly this and it eventually results in a mysterious emulator crash. Can Rust enforce these lifetime constraints?
I think the heap can be easily managed by turning it into a reference.
fn my_nif_function(heap: &Heap, handle: Handle) -> Handle
But how can I link the lifetime of the input and output handles to the heap?
Another wrinkle to this is that you can also create your own heaps and handles which are allowed to live outside the scope of a callback invocation. In C++ I would use std::unique_ptr with a custom destructor. What is the Rust equivalent? The [simplified] C API for managing heaps looks like this:
Heap *create_heap();
void destroy_heap(Heap *);
Reference: NIFs are described here: http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/erl_nif.html . The Erlang names for "heaps" and "handles" are "environments" and "terms". I used the names "heaps" and "handles" so that the question would be more broadly understood.
Rust 1.0
The various marker types have been unified into one: PhantomData
use std::ptr;
use std::marker::PhantomData;
struct Heap {
ptr: *const u8,
}
impl Heap {
fn new(c_ptr: *const u8) -> Heap {
Heap {
ptr: c_ptr
}
}
fn wrap_handle<'a>(&'a self, c_handle: *const u8) -> Handle<'a> {
Handle {
ptr: c_handle,
marker: PhantomData,
}
}
}
struct Handle<'a> {
ptr: *const u8,
marker: PhantomData<&'a ()>,
}
fn main() {
let longer_heap = Heap::new(ptr::null());
let handle = {
let shorter_heap = Heap::new(ptr::null());
let longer_handle = longer_heap.wrap_handle(ptr::null());
let shorter_handle = shorter_heap.wrap_handle(ptr::null());
// longer_handle // ok to return
// shorter_handle // error: `shorter_heap` does not live long enough
};
}
Original Answer
Here's an example of using ContravariantLifetime. We wrap the raw heap pointer into a struct and then wrap raw handle pointers in another struct, reusing the lifetime of the heap.
use std::ptr;
use std::marker::ContravariantLifetime;
struct Heap {
ptr: *const u8,
}
impl Heap {
fn new(c_ptr: *const u8) -> Heap {
Heap {
ptr: c_ptr
}
}
fn wrap_handle<'a>(&'a self, c_handle: *const u8) -> Handle<'a> {
Handle {
ptr: c_handle,
marker: ContravariantLifetime,
}
}
}
struct Handle<'a> {
ptr: *const u8,
marker: ContravariantLifetime<'a>,
}
fn main() {
let longer_heap = Heap::new(ptr::null());
let handle = {
let shorter_heap = Heap::new(ptr::null());
let longer_handle = longer_heap.wrap_handle(ptr::null());
let shorter_handle = shorter_heap.wrap_handle(ptr::null());
// longer_handle // ok to return
// shorter_handle // error: `shorter_heap` does not live long enough
};
}
Lifetime markers
There are 3 lifetime markers. I won't attempt to replicate the reasonably good but dense documentation here, but can also point out the dense Wikipedia page, which might be some small assistance. I've listed them in the order that you are most likely to use them:
ContravariantLifetime
InvariantLifetime
CovariantLifetime

Resources