Skip to content

Propose goal: Field Projections #329

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
98 changes: 98 additions & 0 deletions src/2025h2/field-projections.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
# Design a language feature to solve Field Projections

| Metadata | |
|:-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Point of contact | @BennoLossin |
| Teams | <!-- TEAMS WITH ASKS --> |
| Task owners | <!-- TASK OWNERS --> |
| Status | Proposed |
| Tracking issue | |
| Zulip channel | N/A |

## Summary

Figure out the best design for field projections. Update the existing [Field Projections RFC] or
author a new one and implement it for use in nightly via a lang experiment.

[Field Projections RFC]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3735
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like the thinking has progressed since this RFC, in which case I encourage you to also link the latest draft.


## Motivation

Rust makes extensive use of smart pointers (`Box<T>`, `Rc<T>`, `Arc<T>`), modified references (`&mut
MaybeUninit<T>`, `Pin<&mut T>`) and custom pointer types (`NonNull<T>`).

Some of these types implement the `Deref[Mut]` trait(s) allowing one to access fields of the type
`T`. But not all of them can implement it due to various reasons. However, they often *can* support
operations that "index" into the fields of the type `T`. For example `&mut MaybeUninit<Struct>`
conceptually has fields of type `&mut MaybeUninit<Field>`.

### The status quo

Rust has a lot of container types that make it difficult to directly interact with fields of structs
that they wrap. For example:
- `MaybeUninit<T>`,
- `UnsafeCell<T>`,
- `Cell<T>`

It also has several pointer-like types that could support a natural pointer-to-field operation. For
example:
- `NonNull<T>`,
- `*const T` / `*mut T`,
- `cell::Ref<'_, T>` / `cell::RefMut<'_, T>`

Additionally, there is `Pin<&mut T>`, which already has a well-established name for this operation:
pin-projections. The ecosystem provides several crates to add this operation to the struct itself.

#### Custom types

A plethora of types making use of field projections are found in the context of Rust for Linux.
Therefore they might -- with high probability -- come up in other embedded projects too.

- `VolatilePtr<'a, T>` like `*mut T`, but with a lifetime & all accesses to the pointer are
volatile.
- `Ptr<'a, T>` like a `&'a T` but without certain rust guarantees (most likely `&'a UnsafePinned<T>`
under the hood).
- `RcuMutex<T>` a safe abstraction for RCU (a special synchronization primitive in the kernel)
working together with a `Mutex<T>` to synchronize accesses to data (this requires complex
projections, only allowing certain fields to be projected).
- `SeqLockRef<'_, T>`
- `AtomicPtr<T>` where `T` is a small enough type composed of integers.
- `UserPtr<T>` a pointer into userspace

Additionally, Rust for Linux could take advantage of field information present in the current
proposal. Essentially answering the question "does this type have a field of type X at offset Y?"
via traits.
Comment on lines +62 to +64
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you take a look at #311 for this and let me know your thoughts? Do you think we can unify the proposals?


Note that the projections listed above are also very important to Rust for Linux. Virtually all
types are pinned in the kernel, so `Pin<&mut T>` comes up a lot in drivers. We're also handling raw
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that this is something we might add special syntax for, as part of pin ergonomics. See the design sketch at the top of rust-lang/rust#130494 (the third bullet in particular) and let me know if it matches your expectations.

It would be nice if we could describe both this and regular deref projection in terms of this more general feature. Though I can see there being downsides to that, if there are cases where sometimes you want to go through Deref and sometimes you want to project.. do any come to mind for you?

pointers very often where we could use `NonNull<T>` instead if they had better field access.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe raw pointers would benefit from the syntax too.


### The next 6 months

Have design meetings with the relevant parties & update the existing or write a new RFC.

### The "shiny future" we are working towards

Have field projections available in stable Rust.

## Design axioms

- **Effortless Syntax.** Using field projections in a non-generic context should look very similar
to normal field accesses.
- **Broad Solution.** Field projections should be very general and solve complex projection problems
such as pin-projections and `RcuMutex<T>`.

## Ownership and team asks

| Task | Owner(s) or team(s) | Notes |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design meeting | ![Team][] [lang] | Possibly more than one required as well as discussions on zulip. |
| Lang-team experiment | @dingxiangfei2009, @BennoLossin, ![Team][] [lang] | |
Copy link
Member

@lqd lqd Jul 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure exactly what @nikomatsakis envisioned here when implementing the checks, but this will fail CI tooling as it will think you two are also teams. Likely this check should be improved on our side ^^. cc @tomassedovic

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can move us to the notes section if that's the intended location

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd say move to notes for now then.

| Author RFC | @BennoLossin | |
| Lang-team champion | ![Team][] [lang] | *Champion Needed* |
| Secondary RFC review | ![Team][] [types] | might be a good idea? |
| RFC decision | ![Team][] [lang] | |


## Frequently asked questions

Loading