TBD

Last year I worked on the Stylo project, uplifting Servo’s CSS engine (“style system”) into Firefox’s browser engine (“Gecko”). This involved a lot of gnarly FFI between Servo’s Rust codebase and Firefox’s C++ codebase. There were a lot of challenges in doing this, and I feel like it’s worth sharing things from our experiences.

If you’re interested in Rust integrations, you may find this talk by Isis and Chelsea on integrating Rust in Tor and this talk by Katharina on Rust - C++ FFI useful as well.

Who is this post for?

So, first off the bat, I’ll mention that when integrating Rust into a C++ codebase, you want to avoid having integrations as tight as Stylo. Don’t do what we did; make your Rust component mostly self-contained so that you just have to maintain something like ten FFI functions for interacting with it.

That said, sometimes you have to have gnarly integrations, and this blog post is for those use cases. These techniques mostly use bindgen for implementation, however you can potentially use them with hand-rolled bindings as well.

What was involved in Stylo’s FFI?

So, what made Stylo’s FFI so complicated?

It turns out that browsers are quite monolithic. You can split them into vaguely-defined components, but these components are still tightly integrated. If you intend to replace a component, you may need to make a jagged edge of an integration surface.

The style system is more self-contained than other parts, but it’s still quite tightly integrated.

The main job of a “style system” is to take the CSS rules and DOM tree, and run them through “the cascade” with an output of “computed styles” tagged on each node in the tree. So, for example, it will take a document like the following:

and turn it into something like:

• <body> has a font-size of 12px, everything else is the default
• the div #foo has a computed height of 24px, everything else is the default

From a code point of view, this means that Stylo takes in Gecko’s C++ DOM tree. It parses all the CSS, and then runs the cascade on the tree. It stores computed styles on each element in a way that Gecko can read very cheaply.

Style computation can involve some complex steps that require calling back into C++ code. Servo’s style system is multithreaded, but Gecko is mostly designed to work off of a single main thread per process, so we need to deal with this impedence mismatch.

Since the output of Stylo is C++-readable structs, Stylo needs to be able to read and write nontrivial C++ abstractions. Typical FFI involves passing values over a boundary, never to be seen again, however here we’re dealing with persistent state that is accessed by both sides. At best you may have some persistent rust structs that C++ code may hold onto as opaque pointers, and manipulating them via FFI.

To sum up, we have:

• Lots and lots of back-and-forth FFI
• Rust code regularly dealing with nontrivial C++ abstractions
• A need for nontrivial abstractions to be passed over FFI

All of this conspires to make for some complicated FFI code :)

The actual techniques

Alright, on to the actual techniques.

I’ll try to structure this so that the more broadly useful (and/or less gnarly) techniques come earlier in the post.

Basic bindgen

Bindgen is a tool that generates Rust bindings for structs and functions from the provided C or C++ header files. It’s often used for writing Rust bindings to existing C/C++ libraries, however it’s useful for integrations as well.

To use it for an integration, write a header file containing the functions your Rust code needs (referencing structs from other header files if necessary), and run bindgen on it. For some codebases, doing this once and checking in the generate file suffices, but if your C++ code is going to change a lot, run it as a build dependency instead. Beware that this can adversely impact build times, since your Rust build now has a partial C++ compilation step.

For large C++ codebases, pulling in a single header will likely pull in a lot of stuff. You should whitelist, blacklist, and/or mark things as opaque to reduce the amount of bindings generated. It’s best to go the whitelisting route — give bindgen a whitelisted list of functions / structs to generate bindings for, and it will transitively generate bindings for any dependencies they may have. Sometimes even this will end up generating a lot, it’s sometimes worth finding structs you’re not using and marking them as opaque so that their bindings aren’t necessary. Marking something as opaque replaces it with an array of the appropriate size and alignment, so from the Rust side it’s just some bits you don’t care about.

Bindgen does support some C++ features (you may need to pass -x c++). This is pretty good for generating bindings to e.g. templated structs. However, it’s not possible to support all C++ features here, so you may need to blacklist, opaqueify, or use intermediate types if you have some complicated C++ abstractions in the deps. You’ll typically get an error when generating bindings or when compiling the generated bindings, so don’t worry about this unless that happens.

Bindgen is quite configurable. Stylo has a script that consumes a large toml file containing all of the configuration.

cbindgen

We don’t use cbindgen in Stylo, but it’s used for Webrender. It does the inverse of what bindgen does: given a Rust crate, it generates C headers for its public API. It’s also quite configurable, however I’ve not used it much so I don’t have many tips for it. I thought it’s worth mentioning either way.

Bindgen-aided C++ calling Rust

So bindgen helps with creating things for Rust to call and manipulate, but not in the opposite direction. cbindgen can help here, but I’m not sure if it’s advisable to have both bindgen and cbindgen operating on the same codebase.

In Stylo we use a bit of a hack for this. Firstly, all FFI functions defined in C++ that Rust calls are declared in one file, and are all named Gecko_*. Bindgen supports regexes for things like whitelisting, so this naming scheme makes it easy to deal with.

We also declare the FFI functions defined in Rust that C++ calls in another file, named Servo_*. They’re also all defined in one place

However, there’s nothing ensuring that the signatures match! If we’re not careful, there may be mismatches. We use a small autogenerated to ensure the validity of the signatures.

This is especially important as we do things like type replacement, and we need tests to ensure that the rug isn’t pulled out from underneath us.

Type replacing for fun and profit

Using blacklisting in conjunction with the --raw-line/raw_line() flag, one can effectively ask bindgen to “replace” types. Blacklisting asks bindgen not to generate bindings for a type, however bindgen will continue to generate bindings referring to that type if necessary. (Unlike opaque types where bindgen generates an opaque binding for the type). --raw-line lets you request bindgen to add a line of raw rust code to the file, and such a line can potentially define or import a new version of the type you blacklisted. Effectively, this lets you replace types.

Bindgen generates unit tests ensuring that the layout of your structs is correct (run them!), so if you accidentally replace a type with something incompatible, you will get warnings at the struct level (functions may not warn).

There are various ways this can be used:

Safe references across FFI

Calling into C++ (and accepting data from C++) is unsafe. However, there’s no reason we should have to worry about this more than we have to. For example, it would be nice if accessor FFI functions (take a foreign object, return something from inside it) could use lifetimes. And if nullability were represented on the FFI boundary so that you don’t miss null checks (and can assume non-nullness when the C++ API is okay with it).

In Stylo, we have lots of functions like the following:

which bindgen translates to:

Using the bindgen build script on a provided list of borrow-able types, we’ve told bindgen that:

• FooBorrowedOrNull is actually Option<&Foo>
• FooBorrowed is actually &Foo

Option<&Foo> is represented as a single nullable pointer in Rust, so this is a clean translation. We’re forced to null-check it, but once we do we can safely assume that the reference is valid. Furthermore, due to lifetime elision the actual signature of the FFI function is fn Gecko_GetLastChild<'a>(x: &'a RawGeckoNode) -> Option<&'a RawGeckoNode>, which ensures we won’t let the returned reference outlive the passed reference.

Note that this is shifting some of the safety invariants to the C++ side: We rely on the C++ to pass us valid references, and we rely on it to not pass nulls when not marked as such. Most C++ codebases internally rely on such invariants for safety anyway, so this isn’t much of a stretch.

We do this on both sides, actually: Many of our Rust-defined extern "C" functions that C++ calls get to be safe because the types let us assume the validity of the pointers obtaned from C++.

Making C++ abstractions Rust-accessible

A very useful thing to do here is to replace various C++ abstractions with Rust versions of them that share semantics. In Gecko, most strings are stored in nsString/nsAString/etc.

We’ve written an nsstring crate that represents layout-compatible nsStrings in a more Rusty way, with Rusty APIs. We then ask bindgen to replace Gecko nsStrings with these.

Usually it’s easier to just write an impl for the bindgen-generated abstraction, however sometimes you must replace it:

• When the abstraction internally does a lot of template stuff not supported by bindgen
• When you want the code for the abstraction to be in a separate crate

Potential pitfall: Passing C++ classes by-value over FFI

It’s quite tempting to do stuff like

where you pass complicated classes by-value over FFI (RefPtr is Gecko’s variant of Rc<T>/Arc<T>).

This works on some systems, but is broken on MSVC: The ABI for passing non-POD types through functions is different. The linker usually notices this and complains, but it’s worth avoiding this entirely.

In Stylo we handle this by using some macro-generated intermediate types which are basically the same thing as the original class but without any constructors/destructors/operators. We convert to/from these types immediately before/after the FFI call, and on the Rust side we do similar conversions to Rust-compatible abstractions.

Sharing abstractions with destructors

If you’re passing ownership of abstractions across FFI, you probably want for Rust code to be able to destroy C++ objects, and vice versa.

One way of doing this is to implement Drop on the generated struct. If you have class MyString, you can do:

The MyString_Destroy isn’t necessary with bindgen – bindgen will generate a MyString::destruct() function for you – but be careful, this will make your generated bindings very platform-specific, so be sure to only do this if running them at build time.

In Stylo we went down the route of manually defining _Destroy() functions since we started off with checked-in platform-agnostic bindings, however we could probably switch to using destruct() if we want to now.

When it comes to generic types, it’s a bit trickier, since Drop can’t be implemented piecewise. You have to do something like:

Note that if you forget to add a Drop implementation for T, this won’t work. See the next section for some ways to handle this.

@@

Potential pitfall: Allocators

If you’re passing heap-managed abstractions across FFI, be careful about which code frees which objects. If your Rust and C++ code don’t share allocators, deallocating memory allocated on the other side can have disastrous consequences.

If you’re building a cdylib or staticlib with Rust (this is likely if you’re linking it with a C++ application), the compiler will by default pick the system allocator (malloc), so if your C++ application also uses the same you’re all set.

On some platforms when building rlibs and binaries, Rust may choose jemalloc instead. It’s also possible that your C++ code uses a different allocator (lots of applications use allocators like jemalloc or tcmalloc, some have their own custom allocators like tor_malloc in Tor).

In such cases you have one of three options:

• Avoid transferring ownership of heap-allocated items, only share things as borrowed references
• Call destructors over FFI, as detailed in the section on destructors above
• Set Rust’s allocator to be the same as documented in the std::alloc module. Basically, can use the #[global_allocator] attribute to select which allocator you wish to use, and if necessary you can implement the GlobalAlloc trait on a custom allocator type that calls into whatever custom allocator C++ is using.

@@

@@ Transparent

@@ C enums

@@ ABI concerns