Why is a immutable pointer to a static immutable v

Question

A static global C string (as in this answer) doesn't have the Sync trait.

pub static MY_STRING: &'static *const u8
  = "hello" as const *u8;

// TODO: Simple assertion showing it's not Sync ;)

Sync is described as

The precise definition is: a type T is Sync if &T is thread-safe. In other words, there is no possibility of data races when passing &T references between threads.

It seems like this is entirely readonly and has static lifetime, so why isn't it safe to pass a reference?

Answer 1

The chapter Send and Sync in The Rustonomicon describes what it means for a type to be Send or Sync. It mentions that:

• raw pointers are neither Send nor Sync (because they have no safety guards).

But that just begs the question; why doesn't *const T implement Sync? Why do the safety guards matter?

Just before that, it says:

Send and Sync are also automatically derived traits. This means that, unlike every other trait, if a type is composed entirely of Send or Sync types, then it is Send or Sync. Almost all primitives are Send and Sync, and as a consequence pretty much all types you'll ever interact with are Send and Sync.

This is the key reason why raw pointers are neither Send nor Sync. If you defined a struct that encapsulates a raw pointer, but only expose it as a &T or &mut T in the struct's API, did you really make sure that your struct respects the contracts of Send and Sync? If raw pointers were Send, then Rc<T> would also be Send by default, so it would have to explicitly opt-out. (In the source, there is in fact an explicit opt-out for Rc<T>, but it's only for documentation purposes, because it's actually redundant.)

[...] they're unsafe traits. This means that they are unsafe to implement, and other unsafe code can assume that they are correctly implemented.

OK, let's recap: they're unsafe to implement, but they're automatically derived. Isn't that a weird combination? Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds. Most primitive types, like u32, are Send and Sync. Simply compounding primitive values into a struct or enum is not enough to disqualify the type for Send or Sync. Therefore, you need a struct or enum with non-Send or non-Sync before you need to write an unsafe impl.

Send and Sync are marker traits, which means they have no methods. Therefore, when a function or type puts a Send or Sync bound on a type parameter, it's relying on the type to respect a particular contract across all of its API. Because of this:

Incorrectly implementing Send or Sync can cause Undefined Behavior.