Rust Won't Save You From All Bugs

Wednesday, October 10 2018

But it'll probably catch quite a few

Rust is neat. Very neat. There have been a lot of words dedicated to praising it. Perhaps to the point where, as an outsider, you might have the impression that when you write Rust code you won't run into bugs. Unfortunately this isn't the case.

So let's dive in and see what kind of errors Rust can't catch (yet) at compile time, just so you get a feel for what you need to watch out for when writing Rust code.


Crashes, panics, aborts -- they all mean slightly different things, but they all show somewhat similar behavior. When a panic occurs, your system stops, emits a stack trace and exits with status code 101.

However panics in Rust are less volatile than say C++ or Java. This is because it's impossible to represent invalid states in safe Rust. So you won't see Segfaults, NullPointerExceptions or "Cannot read property 'foo' of undefined" show up in your process.

We'll dive into more detail on which panics are possible in the next few sections.

Arithmetic Under / Overflows

By default Rust's math operations don't wrap around. Wrapping around is when you the following is true: u8::max_value() + 1 == 0. In non-release builds this causes a panic. You can opt-into wrap around behavior using .wrapping_add() and friends, but that's not the default. So you have to watch out when doing math.

Numeric Guards in the type system

Rust's stdlib does not have a way to set value constraints on input numbers. Say we would want to only allow multiple of 2's to be passed into a function. We'd need to write a runtime assertion for this:

fn square(x: usize) -> usize {
  x * x

This is the type of invariant that would be ideal if we could enforce at compile time. Luckily we can using typenum1. This would allow us to rewrite the above to:

fn square(x: impl typenum::PowerOfTwo) -> usize {
  x * x

The downside to this is that it will only work at compile time, so it can't work on user input. The upside to this is that it'll work at compile time, and catch programmer errors early.

Unsafe blocks

All bets are off when using unsafe {}. Well, sort of. Like we said before it changes compile time checks to runtime checks that you need to implement yourself.

Luckily it seems we're getting an increasing range of useful tools to deal with unsafe code. Ralfj has been working on a runtime version of the borrow checker2 (excited to see where this goes!). And cargo-geiger3 exists to vet your dependencies for instances of unsafe.

Also note that by default you're allowed to write unsafe {} blocks in your code. If you want to be a bit more strict about this you can add the #[deny(unsafe_code)] attribute to the top of your lib.rs file.

Infinite loops

It's totally possible to get yourself into an infinite loop. This code will eventually crash:

fn do_thing(x: mut usize) {
  loop {
    x += 1;

So generally it's recommended to always make use of iterators, because if they're implemented correctly there's less chance you might accidentally mess up a loop. But like with everything there's no guarantees, so it's good to be aware of.

Out of Memory problems

This is treading into the realm of things that I haven't tested out yet, but I heard that if your program runs out of memory, any part of your code might crash. This shouldn't be all too common on modern hardware, but it's included for completion.

Random Bit Flips

Same with cosmic rays flipping bits in your RAM. Realistically this shouldn't be too much of an issue for most applications, but it's good to keep in mind that Rust does not prevent hardware failures.

Logic bugs

This is probably the most fun one out there. Rust can help you catch bugs where you incorrectly told a computer to do a thing. But it can't help you catch bugs where you correctly told the computer to the wrong thing. This class of bugs is considered logic bugs.

An example is the following code:

// Incorrect
fn increment_a(x: usize) -> usize {
  x + 1

// Correct
fn increment_b(x: usize) -> usize {
  x + 2

The compiler doesn't know which version is the correct code. Both cases are perfectly fine, but the difference sits in the intent of the code. The only way to catch these type of bugs is by writing tests.

Luckily there are great test packages in Rust such as proptest4 and quickcheck5. These help you to test a much wider input space than when you write tests by hand, which increases the chance of flushing out bugs before your code hits production.

A fun paraphrased quote here is (I think?) by Dijkstra:

"Tests can only prove the presence of bugs, but never the absence of them."


Hopefully this helps illustrate what kind of errors Rust can catch at compile time, and which errors it can't. As far as productive languages go, I think Rust is in a pretty good spot.

I'm also excited for what the future might hold. Personally I'd love to eventually see Rust figure out a way to bring the capabilities typenum provides into the core language (#20006, perhaps?)

Regardless of what the future holds, I think Rust is decent at what it does already -- and will probably only get better at it over time.


  1. https://docs.rs/typenum/
  2. https://www.ralfj.de/blog/2018/08/07/stacked-borrows.html
  3. https://crates.io/crates/cargo-geiger
  4. https://github.com/altsysrq/proptest
  5. https://github.com/BurntSushi/quickcheck/
  6. https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2000