Rust pattern: Rooting an Rc handle

16 April 2018

I’ve decided to do a little series of posts about Rust compiler errors. Each one will talk about a particular error that I got recently and try to explain (a) why I am getting it and (b) how I fixed it. The purpose of this series of posts is partly to explain Rust, but partly just to gain data for myself. I may also write posts about errors I’m not getting – basically places where I anticipated an error, and used a pattern to avoid it. I hope that after writing enough of these posts, I or others will be able to synthesize some of these facts to make intermediate Rust material, or perhaps to improve the language itself.

The error: Rc-rooting

The inaugural post concerns Rc-rooting. I am currently in the midst of editing some code. In this code, I have a big vector of data:

struct Data {
  vector: Vec<Datum>

struct Datum {

Many different consumers are sharing this data, but in a read-only fashion, so the data is stored in an Rc<Data>, and each consumer has their own handle. Here is one such consumer:

struct Consumer {
  data: Rc<Data>

In that consumer, I am trying to iterate over the data and process it, one datum at a time:

impl Consumer {
  fn process_data(&mut self) {
    for datum in & {

  fn process_datum(&mut self, datum: &Datum) {
    /* ... */

This seems reasonable enough, but when I try to compile this, I find that I get a borrow check error:

error[E0502]: cannot borrow `*self` as mutable because `` is also borrowed as immutable
  --> src/
18 |     for datum in & {
   |                   ---------      - immutable borrow ends here
   |                   |
   |                   immutable borrow occurs here
19 |       self.process_datum(datum);
   |       ^^^^ mutable borrow occurs here

Why is that? Well, the borrow checker is pointing out a legitimate concern here (though the span for “immutable borrow ends here” is odd, I filed a bug). Basically, when I invoke process_datum, I am giving it both &mut self and a reference to a Datum; but that datum is owned by self – or, more precisely, it’s owned by a Data, which is in an Rc, and that Rc is owned by self. This means it would be possible for process_datum to cause that to get freed, e.g. by writing to

fn process_datum(&mut self, datum: &Datum) {
  // Overwriting `data` field will lower the ref-count
  // on the `Rc<Data>`; if this is the last handle, then
  // that would cause the `Data` to be freed, in turn invalidating
  // `datum` in the caller we looked at: = Rc::new(Data { vector: vec![] });

Now, of course you and I know that process_datum is not going to overwrite data, because that data is supposed to be an immutable input. But then again – can we say with total confidence that all other people editing this code now and in the future know and understand that invariant? Maybe there will be a need to swap in new data in the future.

To fix this borrow checker bug, we need to ensure that mutating self cannot cause datum to get freed. Since the data is in an Rc, one easy way to do this is to get a second handle to that Rc, and store it on the stack:

fn process_data(&mut self) {
  let data =; // this is new
  for datum in &data.vector {

If you try this, you will find the code compiles, and with good reason: even if process_datum were to modify now, we have a second handle onto the original data, and it will not be deallocated until the loop in process_data completes.

(Note that invoking clone on an Rc, as we do here, merely increases the reference count; it doesn’t do a deep clone of the data.)

How the compiler thinks about this

OK, now that we understand intuitively what’s going on, let’s dive in a bit into how the compiler’s check works, so we can see why the code is being rejected, and why the fixed code is accepted.

The first thing to remember is that the compiler checks one method at a time, and it makes no assumptions about what other methods may or may not do beyond what is specified in the types of their arguments or their return type. This is a key property – it ensures that, for example, you are free to modify the body of a function and it won’t cause your callers to stop compiling1. It also ensures that the analysis is scalable to large programs, since adding functions doesn’t make checking any individual function harder (so total time scales linearly with the number of functions2).

Next, we have to apply the borrow checker’s basic rule: “While some path is shared, it cannot be mutated.” In this case, the shared borrow occurs in the for loop:

    for datum in & {
    //           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ shared borrow

Here, the path being borrowed is The compiler’s job here is to ensure that, so long as the reference datum is in use, that path is not mutated (because mutating it could cause datum to be freed).

So, for example, it would be an error to write *self = ..., because that would overwrite self with a new value, which might cause the old value of data to be freed, which in turn would free the vector within, which would invalidate datum. Similarly, writing = ... could cause the vector to be freed as well (as we saw earlier).

In the actual example, we are not directly mutating self, but we are invoking process_datum, which takes an &mut self argument:

  for datum in & {
            // ----------------- shared borrow
    //   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ point of error

Since process_datum is declared as &mut self, invoking self.process_datum(..) is treated as a potential write to *self (and, and hence an error is reported.

Now compare what happens after the fix. Remember that we cloned into a local variable and borrowed that:

  let data =;
  for datum in &data.vector {
            // ^^^^^^^^^^^^ shared borrow

Now that path being borrowed is data.vector, and so when we invoke self.process_datum(..), the compiler does not see any potential writes to data (only self). Therefore, no errors are reported. Note that the compiler still assumes the worst about process_datum: process_datum may mutate *self or But even if it does so, that won’t cause datum to be freed, because it is borrowed from data, which is an independent handle to the vector.


Sometimes it is useful to clone the data you are iterating over into a local variable, so that the compiler knows it will not be freed. If the data is immutable, storing that data in an Rc or Arc makes that clone cheap (i.e., O(1)). (Another way to make that clone cheap is to use a persistent collection type – such as those provided by the im crate.)

If the data is mutable, there are various other patterns that you could deploy, which I’ll try to cover in follow-up articles – but often it’s best if you can get such data into a local variable, instead of a field, so you can track it with more precision.

How we could accept this code in the future

There would be various ways for the compiler to accept this code: for example, we’ve thought about extensions to let you declare the sets of fields accessed by a function (and perhaps the ways in which they are accessed), which might let you declare that process_datum will never modify the data field.

I’ve also kicked around the idea of “immutable” fields from time to time, which would basically let you declare that nobody will ovewrite that field, but that gets complicated in the face of generics. For example, one can mutate the field data not just by doing = ... but by doing *self = ...; and the latter might be in generic code that works for any &mut T: this implies we’d have to start categorizing the types T into “assignable or not”3. I suspect we would not go in this direction.


I’ve opened a users thread to discuss this blog post (along with other Rust pattern blog posts).


  1. Or crash, as would happen without the compiler’s checks. ↩︎

  2. Total time for the safety check, that is. Optimizations and other things are sometimes inter-procedural. ↩︎

  3. Interestingly, C++ does this when you have const fields. ↩︎