# Meet Safe and Unsafe

Programmers in safe "high-level" languages face a fundamental dilemma. On one hand, it would be really great to just say what you want and not worry about how it's done. On the other hand, that can lead to unacceptably poor performance. It may be necessary to drop down to less clear or idiomatic practices to get the performance characteristics you want. Or maybe you just throw up your hands in disgust and decide to shell out to an implementation in a less sugary-wonderful unsafe language.

Worse, when you want to talk directly to the operating system, you have to talk to an unsafe language: C. C is ever-present and unavoidable. It's the lingua-franca of the programming world. Even other safe languages generally expose C interfaces for the world at large! Regardless of why you're doing it, as soon as your program starts talking to C it stops being safe.

With that said, Rust is totally a safe programming language.

Well, Rust has a safe programming language. Let's step back a bit.

Rust can be thought of as being composed of two programming languages: Safe Rust and Unsafe Rust. Safe Rust is For Reals Totally Safe. Unsafe Rust, unsurprisingly, is not For Reals Totally Safe. In fact, Unsafe Rust lets you do some really, really unsafe things.

Safe Rust is the true Rust programming language. If all you do is write Safe Rust, you will never have to worry about type-safety or memory-safety. You will never endure a null or dangling pointer, or any of that Undefined Behavior nonsense.

That's totally awesome.

The standard library also gives you enough utilities out-of-the-box that you'll be able to write awesome high-performance applications and libraries in pure idiomatic Safe Rust.

But maybe you want to talk to another language. Maybe you're writing a low-level abstraction not exposed by the standard library. Maybe you're writing the standard library (which is written entirely in Rust). Maybe you need to do something the type-system doesn't understand and just frob some dang bits. Maybe you need Unsafe Rust.

Unsafe Rust is exactly like Safe Rust with all the same rules and semantics. However Unsafe Rust lets you do some extra things that are Definitely Not Safe.

The only things that are different in Unsafe Rust are that you can:

- Dereference raw pointers
- Call `unsafe` functions (including C functions, intrinsics, and the raw allocator)
- Implement `unsafe` traits
- Mutate statics

That's it. The reason these operations are relegated to Unsafe is that misusing any of these things will cause the ever dreaded Undefined Behavior. Invoking Undefined Behavior gives the compiler full rights to do arbitrarily bad things to your program. You definitely should not invoke Undefined Behavior.

Unlike C, Undefined Behavior is pretty limited in scope in Rust. All the core language cares about is preventing the following things:

- Dereferencing null or dangling pointers
- Reading uninitialized memory
- Breaking the pointer aliasing rules
- Producing invalid primitive values:
  - dangling/null references
  - a `bool` that isn't 0 or 1
  - an undefined `enum` discriminant
  - a `char` outside the ranges [0x0, 0xD7FF] and [0xE000, 0x10FFFF]
  - A non-utf8 `str`
- Unwinding into another language
- Causing a data race

That's it. That's all the causes of Undefined Behavior baked into Rust. Of course, unsafe functions and traits are free to declare arbitrary other constraints that a program must maintain to avoid Undefined Behavior. However, generally violations of these constraints will just transitively lead to one of the above problems. Some additional constraints may also derive from compiler intrinsics that make special assumptions about how code can be optimized.

Rust is otherwise quite permissive with respect to other dubious operations. Rust considers it "safe" to:

- Deadlock
- Have a race condition
- Leak memory
- Fail to call destructors
- Overflow integers
- Abort the program
- Delete the production database

However any program that actually manages to do such a thing is probably incorrect. Rust provides lots of tools to make these things rare, but these problems are considered impractical to categorically prevent.