Rust's Safety Promise - The Unspoken Caveats of Memory Leaks
What is a Memory Leak?
A memory leak occurs when a program allocates memory but forgets to release it after it’s no longer needed. Over time, these forgotten allocations accumulate, consuming available RAM and potentially causing the application to slow down or crash.
While Rust’s ownership model prevents many types of memory errors, it doesn’t make leaks impossible. The most common cause in safe Rust is a reference cycle, where smart pointers like Arc<T> (Atomic Reference Counted) create a loop of ownership, preventing the reference count from ever reaching zero.
The Universal Leak Pattern
The fundamental problem can be visualized as a standoff. A main task owns a resource, but it gives a co-owning reference (Arc) to a sub-task. If that sub-task never finishes or never drops its reference, the resource can never be deallocated.
Main Task (Owner) → Resource (T) ← Sub Task (Co-owner) = Memoryyy Leeeeaaaak 🫠
Scenario 1: The Long-Lived Worker
A very common pattern is spawning a background task that needs to share state with its creator. If the worker holds a strong reference (Arc) and is designed to run forever, the shared state will also live forever.
The lamp is still lighted even when the cord is unplugged…
The Problem
Imagine a server that has a ConnectionManager. For each new connection, it spawns a task to handle it, giving that task an Arc to the manager.
WARNING
This pattern creates a memory leak because the worker thread holds a strong reference to the manager, preventing it from being deallocated even when the main thread drops its reference.
use std::sync::Arc;
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;
struct ConnectionManager {
// ... details
}
impl ConnectionManager {
fn new() -> Arc<Self> {
let manager = Arc::new(ConnectionManager { /* ... */ });
// Clone the Arc to move into the new thread
let manager_clone = manager.clone();
// This worker task runs for the lifetime of the program
thread::spawn(move || {
loop {
// The worker holds onto manager_clone forever...
println!("Worker is alive...");
thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(1));
}
});
manager // Return the original Arc
}
}
// Even when `main_manager` goes out of scope, the memory is not freed
// because the spawned thread still holds a strong reference.
fn main() {
let main_manager = ConnectionManager::new();
println!("Manager created. It will now leak.");
// main_manager is dropped here,
// but the leak has already happened,
// as spawn thread will continue holding the reference to main_manager
}
The Fix: Use a Weak Pointer (Weak<T>)
A Weak pointer allows you to reference an object without contributing to its ownership count. It’s like having a “guest pass” instead of a key. To access the data, you must first upgrade() it to a temporary Arc. If the original Arc has been dropped, upgrade() will return None. Hence when the original Arc is dropped, it will propagate it’s effects its subtasks, and bring it out of scope.
TIP
Use
Weak<T>when you need to reference shared data without preventing its deallocation. This is especially useful for background tasks that should gracefully handle the case when the main data is dropped.
use std::sync::{Arc, Weak};
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;
struct ConnectionManager {
// ... details
}
impl ConnectionManager {
fn new() -> Arc<Self> {
let manager = Arc::new(ConnectionManager { /* ... */ });
// Create a weak pointer for the worker task
let manager_weak: Weak<Self> = Arc::downgrade(&manager);
thread::spawn(move || {
loop {
// Try to upgrade the weak pointer to a temporary strong one
if let Some(manager_strong) = manager_weak.upgrade() {
println!("Worker is alive and manager still exists.");
// manager_strong is dropped here, releasing the temporary strong reference
} else {
println!("Manager has been dropped. Worker shutting down.");
break; // Exit the loop
}
thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(1));
}
});
manager
}
}
fn main() {
let main_manager = ConnectionManager::new();
println!("Manager created. It will be dropped shortly.");
drop(main_manager); // Manually drop to show the effect
thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(3)); // Give the worker time to notice
println!("Program finished cleanly.");
}
Scenario 2: The Deadlock
This happens when two different structs hold Arcs pointing to each other, creating a direct cycle.
The Problem
Imagine a Parent and Child relationship where each needs to be able to reference the other.
DANGER
This creates a reference cycle where Parent → Child → Parent, preventing both from being deallocated. This is a classic memory leak pattern in Rust.
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
struct Parent {
child: Mutex<Option<Arc<Child>>>,
}
struct Child {
parent: Arc<Parent>,
}
fn create_cycle() {
// Parent gets a strong reference to itself (count = 1)
let parent = Arc::new(Parent { child: Mutex::new(None) });
// Child gets a clone of the parent's Arc (count = 2)
let child = Arc::new(Child { parent: parent.clone() });
// Now, we make the parent point to the child
// This creates the cycle: Parent -> Child -> Parent
*parent.child.lock().unwrap() = Some(child);
// When this function ends, both `parent` and `child` go out of scope,
// but the reference count for each is still 1 because they point to each other.
// Memory is leaked.
}
The Fix: Weaken One Side of the Relationship
The solution is to decide which relationship is primary and make the other one Weak. In a parent/child model, the parent “owns” the child, so the child’s reference back to the parent should be weak.
TIP
Always establish a clear ownership hierarchy. One side should own the other, and the reverse reference should be weak. This prevents cycles while maintaining necessary relationships.
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex, Weak};
struct Parent {
child: Mutex<Option<Arc<Child>>>,
}
struct Child {
// The reference back to the parent is now weak
parent: Weak<Parent>,
}
fn break_cycle() {
let parent = Arc::new(Parent { child: Mutex::new(None) });
// Create a weak pointer to the parent before creating the child
let parent_weak = Arc::downgrade(&parent);
let child = Arc::new(Child { parent: parent_weak });
// The cycle is avoided because the child's reference is not owning
*parent.child.lock().unwrap() = Some(child);
// When the function ends, the `parent` Arc's count drops to 0,
// and both structs are deallocated correctly. No leak!
}
Conclusion
Don’t be surprised if your Rust application consumes more memory than you’d expect. While Rust provides the tools for incredible performance, true efficiency comes from how we, as developers, design our code. Writing mindful, cycle-aware code is what unlocks the language’s full potential.
Enjoy Reading This Article?
Here are some more articles you might like to read next: