Welcome to the Mike's homepage!

Various things I do outside of work: fun, boring, anything really.

View on GitHub
29 January 2021

A curious case of static memory allocation in Rust

by Mike Krinkin

In the previous post I covered the binary representation of the Flattened DeviceTree or DeviceTree Blob and was already starting to work on memory management for my hobby project, but I got stuck for quite some time trying to come up with a reasonable way to work with statically allocated memory in Rust.

I don’t think that I found an obviously convincing approach here, but what can you do…

As always, I have some sources related to the post on GitHub, though in this particular post I will be construction a purely hypothetical example, so you will not be able to find the snippets from the post in the repository.

Static Memory Allocation Strawman

I’d like to start by separating globals and statics. Not all statically allocated objects have to be global. You can look at it this way: we have two questions to anwer here:

When we talk about statics we are talking about how the data for the object is allocated. The object may or may not be globally accessible. On the other hand when we talk about globals it’s mostly about who can access the object. We don’t have to allocate memory for global objects statically.

Where to store data?

The programming model of typical imperative programming language that offloads memory management responsibilities to the program itself often provides three high-level options here:

  1. we can dynamically reserve memory for the data when we need it from a global memory pool - dynamic memory allocation;
  2. we can reserve part of the stack of a thread to store some data - this is a less generic, but still quite useful form of dynamic memory allocation;
  3. we can reserve memory in the program binary - similarly to how memory is reserved for the code of the program itself.

All three options provide an answer to the question of where to store data, but all three answers have somewhat different properties. And as you may have guessed statics belong to the option 3.

Option 1 is the most generic, but also is the most demanding. That’s why there are problems where dynamic memory allocation is just not available. So we cannot reduce everything to dynamically allocated memory.

We can however store all the things that we cannot use dynamic memory allocation for on stack. However, while theoretically possible, storing everything on stack create a few practical concerns:

Those two practical concerns have to be addressed and it’s by no means always easy to do correctly.

How to access data?

Accessing globals is easy. You don’t need to structure your code to make sure that all the right data is available where you need it - global data is available everywhere.

So naturally, with such a power comes responsibility and this ease of access can be employed in a good way and in a bad way. And, again unsurprisingly, if something can be used in a bad way you can be sure that it will absolutely be used in a bad way at some point.

So I have an impression that the “globalness” property that is why people bash global variables. For the same reason people often bash singleton pattern.

Unfortunately though, globals and statics often come together, but what follows will be specifically about static memory allocation and not about creating global objects.

The Problem

Back to buisness. My problem is that I’m setting up a memory management system in my hobby project. As such dynamic memory allocation is not available and that sucks. I don’t want to allocate all the things I need on stack, since it comes with caveats. So static allocation it’s!

Without loss of generality we will be allocating an array of objects. That’s what I needed to do for my project, but it’s also turned out to be a more interesting problem.

The code is in Rust. You know one of those “safe” languages that shouldn’t allow you to shut yourself in the foot.

The safety of Rust comes with a few caveats:

One of the fundamental properties of safe Rust typesystem and safe Rust libraries is that there cannot be multiple mutable references to the same object at the same time.

It’s easy to see how this property can be easily violated with global mutable objects. And Rust doesn’t provide means to allocate memory statically in a way that makes safe subset of Rust happy.

NOTE: that Rust does actually provide means to circumvent the restriction on only one mutable reference at a time using so called interrior mutability pattern, however interrior mutability implementation ultimately boil down to using UnsafeCell which implies dropping into unsafe code at some point. The unsafe code might be hidden inside the Rust library, but you can be sure that it’s there. The actual safety guarantees in such cases come from carefully designed interface and library implementation correctness, that should not allow leaking mutable references outside of the library abstractions.

The second caveat is really easy to understand - working with uninitialized state is basically asking for trouble. What makes it a bit difficult in Rust specifically is somewhat lacking support for default initialization. You’ll see what I’m talking about in a moment.


Let’s start from some basic definitions. Let’s introduce a type of objects I’d want to allocate:

pub struct AnObject {
  /* there might be some fields here */

The AnObject type is not copyable. In my case it was because it contained a mutable reference to a slice and copying those is not allowed in the safe subset of Rust - so there are practical reasons for that.

The importance of the Copy trait implementation (or lack of thereof) will become important later.

What I want to implement is a function like this:

pub fn allocate_slice(size: usize) -> Option<&'static mut [AnObject]> {
   /* some magic happening here */

I don’t use statics for the ease of access, I only care about allocating enough memory. So the interface the function provides is what you can expect from an allocator:

Since we want to allocate memory statically the lifetime of the returned value is 'static as well.

Of course, we have to guarantee that we will not return references to the same memory twice from this function. Otherwise we’d be violating only one mutable reference at a time rule.

Basic Idea

The basic idea is that we create a statically allocated arrays of AnObject objects inside the allocate_slice function. When the function is called we will need to check if the array has enough elements and if it does we mark it as reserved and return the slice.

On the subsequent allocations I will return None for simplicity, but in general we don’t have to mark the whole array as reserved and can satisfy more then one allocation from the same array if we wanted to.

Let’s take a look at the straighforward attempt to translate the basic idea into code:

pub fn allocate_slice(size: usize) -> Option<&'static mut [AnObject]> {
    const MAX_SIZE: usize = 32;
    static mut BUSY: bool = false;
    static mut OBJECTS: [AnObject; MAX_SIZE];

    if BUSY {
        return None;

    if size <= MAX_SIZE {
        BUSY = true;
        return Some(&mut OBJECTS[0..size]);


It’s a rough attempt, so unsurprisingly Rust compiler didn’t like it:

error: free static item without body
 --> test.rs:8:5
8 |     static mut OBJECTS: [AnObject; MAX_SIZE];
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-
  |                                             |
  |                                             help: provide a definition for the static: `= <expr>;`


So what’s the problem? As I mentioned before in Rust everything should be initialized, we didn’t initialize OBJECTS array with anything.

In C and C++ it might not be a problem, but it is not because in C and C++ it’s ok to work with uninitialized data. On the contrary in C and C++ statically allocated objects are initialized.

In C there is concept of zero initialization and statically allocated objects are guaranteed to be initialized with zeros. It actually makes a lot of sense too, but of course there are caveats.

What if for your particular type zero initialization doesn’t make sense and doesn’t produce an object with a valid state. Well, tough luck then.

Situation in C++ is better. It does inherit the zero initialization from C, but when zero initialization is not good enough you can provide a constructor that will initialize the object in whatever state you need. So it’s up to you to tell the compiler if zero initialization is what you need or not.

That’s quite reasonable, but it also comes at a cost - at some point somebody has to call the constructors for the objects. So in C++ some initialization will have to happen during runtime as opposed to compile time.

So what the story in Rust? Well, in Rust when it comes to initialization of arrays the story is quite… well, bad. There are roughly four options:

  1. You have to explicitly enumerate each element of the array - quite horrible for any array with more than just a handful elements;
  2. If the type implements Copy trait you can provide just one element
    • that’s quite convenient, but Copy trait implementation is a non-trivial requirement;
  3. If the type implements Default trait, you can just use Default::default() to initialize the array - again, that’s quite convenient, but doesn’t work for statics initialization;
  4. Finally, you can write some unsafe code to initialize the array element by element - which is neither convenient nor does it work for statics.

The option 2 doesn’t work for me because my type doesn’t implement Copy trait.

The options 3 and 4 don’t work for statics because they do initialization during runtime and Rust doesn’t allow runtime initialization for statics, like, for example, C++ does with its constructors.

Which lives us with option 1, which is so terrible that I’d rather cut my hands off.

So what should we do? Well, there is little choice here, but to delay the initialization until the runtime. So essentially we want to initialize array on the first access to the allocate_slice function.

There are multiple options to do that. Rust library provides a dedicated type to deal with potentially uninitialized state: MaybeUninit. However to extract a value from MaybeUninit you have to resort to unsafe code. While for this particular problem unsafe code seem to be unavoidable, we can do better at least for the array initialization with Option.

static mut OBJECTS: Option<AnObject; MAX_SIZE> = None;

We don’t have a good way to initialize an array with some default values during compile time, however we do have an easy way to initialize Option during compile time by storing None there.

As to the runtime initialization, for the example sake I will resort to implementing Default trait. This gives us the following code:

pub struct AnObject {
    /* there might be some fields here */

impl Default for AnObject {
    fn default() -> AnObject {
        AnObject {}

pub fn allocate_slice(size: usize) -> Option<&'static mut [AnObject]> {
    const MAX_SIZE: usize = 32;
    static mut OBJECTS: Option<[AnObject; MAX_SIZE]> = None;

    if OBJECTS.is_some() {
        return None;

    if size <= MAX_SIZE {
        OBJECTS = Some(Default::default());
        return Some(&mut OBJECTS.as_mut().unwrap()[..size]);


Note how using Option allowed us to get rid of BUSY flag, since Option provides us with means to figure out if the allocate_slice function has been called before or not.

Naturally, if you want to be able to satisfy more than one allocation from allocate_slice function you’d have to keep track what parts of the array has been allocated already and just one Option wouldn’t be enough.

The OBJECTS.as_mut() just converts the Option<[AnObject; MAX_SIZE]> to an Option with a mutable refernce to the data inside. The rest should be quite straighforward.


Unfortunately the new code doesn’t compile either. If you try to feed it to the compiler you’ll get a bunch of errors like this:

error[E0133]: use of mutable static is unsafe and requires unsafe function or block
  --> test.rs:15:8
15 |     if OBJECTS.is_some() {
   |        ^^^^^^^ use of mutable static
   = note: mutable statics can be mutated by multiple threads: aliasing violations or data races will cause undefined behavior

As the compiler error suggests, imagine the case of multithreaded code. If this function were to be called from multiple threads concurrently, since it doesn’t provide any kind of syncrhonization we will have a race condition on our hands.

Note though, that the problem here is more general than just a case of bad concurrency. As you can see we basically return from the function a mutable reference to the statically allocated data.

By just looking at types for Rust compiler it’s impossible to proove that we never return a mutable reference to the same object twice and therefore do not create multiple mutable references.

Coincidentally (or maybe not) when you wrap an object that you want to mutate in Mutex or some similar syncrhonization primitive in Rust you don’t have to make the Mutex itself mutable.

Why? Well, as far as Rust type system is concerned “immutable” Mutex can return a mutable reference to its internals (though it does it indirectly). So Mutex “cheats” Rust type system, but it does provide runtime guarantees that make up for that.

Not suprisingly Mutex does it via the interior mutability pattern that I mentioned above, so you can bet that the implimintation of Mutex uses unsafe Rust internally, but provides a safe interface to the users.

Can we use Mutex in this example? Unfortunately not. As of now you cannot create static Mutex in Rust because there is no way to initialize it in compile time.

We can’t even resort to the runtime initialization trick we used earlier because there is no guarantees that initialization of Option will be atomic. Not to mention, that such a static Option will have to be mutable and that completely defeats the point.

So short of implementing your own syncrhonization primitive that allows compile time initialization you will have to stick to the unafe code. So here is the version of the code I settled on:

pub unsafe fn allocate_slice(size: usize) -> Option<&'static mut [AnObject]> {
    const MAX_SIZE: usize = 32;
    static mut OBJECTS: Option<[AnObject; MAX_SIZE]> = None;

    if OBJECTS.is_some() {
        return None;

    if size <= MAX_SIZE {
        OBJECTS = Some(Default::default());
        return Some(&mut OBJECTS.as_mut().unwrap()[..size]);


Generalization (Failure!)

Ok, we have a more or less sensible approach to static allocation. Can we generalize it?

Rust provides a few options to write generic, or, I should say, polimorphic code. For this particular problem we care about compile time polimorphism only. Which leaves us with a few options:

I have a personal despise for code generation. My personal opinion here is driven by my negative experince trying to read code of the projects that involve code generation step as part of their build process. So I didn’t even consider generating code.

Having an experience with C++ templates I decided to go with Rust generics as the problem looked like an easy one. I figured that Rust has both type generics and const generics, just like C++, so the code like this should work just fine:

pub unsafe fn allocate_slice<T: Default, const N: usize>(size: usize) -> Option<&'static mut [T]> {
    static mut OBJECTS: Option<[T; N]> = None;

    if OBJECTS.is_some() {
        return None;

    if size <= N {
        OBJECTS = Some(Default::default());
        return Some(&mut OBJECTS.as_mut().unwrap()[..size]);


So what is this monstrosity is supposed to mean? Well, our function has two generic parameters: the type of the allocated objects and the maximum size of the storage. There is nothing surprising there - we just replace AnObject with a generic T and hardcoded 32 with N.

I additionally require the type T to implement the Default trait to be able to initialize an array of objects of type T - that’s exactly how I did it with AnObject type before as well.

All-in-all, it’s not that bad and by C++ standards that is pretty ordinary use of generics. There is one downside with this implementation though - it doesn’t compile:

error[E0401]: can't use generic parameters from outer function
  --> test.rs:12:33
11 | ...e_slice_gen<T: Default, const N: usize>(size: usize) -> Option<&'stat...
   |                - type parameter from outer function
12 | ...S: Option<[T; N]> = None;
   |               ^ use of generic parameter from outer function

error[E0401]: can't use generic parameters from outer function
  --> test.rs:12:36
11 | ...e_gen<T: Default, const N: usize>(size: usize) -> Option<&'static mut...
   |                            - const parameter from outer function
12 | ...ion<[T; N]> = None;
   |            ^ use of generic parameter from outer function

error: aborting due to 2 previous errors

Turns out in Rust you cannot use generic parameters as part of static object type or initialization. The error from the Rust compiler is not particularly descriptive, but if you run rustc --explain E0401 you’ll get a few examples and should be able to understand why the error message is the way it is.

The same documentation provides a few ways to circumvent the problem for some cases, but unfortunately none of them works for me, at least not without moving problem to runtime.

The reason for this is still a mistery for me, but from googling around I got that it has more to do with the linking rather than with some fundamental property of the Rust language. You can read more by looking at this comment.

Unfortunately I don’t know enough about Rust dylibs, so it’s hard to understand why instantiation of such generics is a problem for dylibs.

BTW, if you got scared by “monomorphisation” don’t be. Behind the scary word there is an easy to understand concept. Just take a look at static dispatch.

This leaves us with the Rust macroses as the last resort. However I didn’t go that way and left the code as it’s without trying to further generalize it. You can take that as an exercise and implement a Rust macro for static memory allocation.

Instead of conclusion

Well, I didn’t expect that working with statics in Rust would be that much of a pain. I’d say Rust would benefit a little bit from introducing a concept of zero initialized types.

And judjung by existance of intrinsics::assert_zero_valid Rust creators do not object to the concept on the fundamental level. With some efforst it could turned into some kind of special trait Zero, similarly to Copy, Sync or Send.

Anyways, all well that ends well. I learned something new (for example, that Rust generics aren’t quite at the same level as C++ templates), so that’s something.

tags: rust