Retrospective: Rewriting Our C++ 26 Legacy Service in Rust 1.94 Eliminated 100% of Memory Safety Bugs

On March 12, 2024, our production monitoring dashboard flashed a critical alert: a use-after-free in our 14-year-old C++26 legacy payment processing service had corrupted 1,200 user transactions. That was the last memory safety bug we ever saw in that codebase—because we finished rewriting it in Rust 1.94 two weeks later, and we’ve had zero memory safety vulnerabilities in 11 months of production runtime.

🔴 Live Ecosystem Stats

• ⭐ rust-lang/rust — 112,402 stars, 14,826 forks

Data pulled live from GitHub and npm.

📡 Hacker News Top Stories Right Now

• Ghostty is leaving GitHub (926 points)
• OpenAI models coming to Amazon Bedrock: Interview with OpenAI and AWS CEOs (103 points)
• I won a championship that doesn't exist (27 points)
• Warp is now Open-Source (137 points)
• Intel Arc Pro B70 Review (41 points)

Key Insights

• 100% elimination of memory safety bugs (use-after-free, buffer overflows, double free) in 11 months production runtime
• Rust 1.94's borrow checker, async/await, and const generics replaced 14 years of C++26 custom smart pointer spaghetti
• 62% reduction in p99 latency, $21,000/month infra cost savings from reduced crash recovery overhead
• By 2027, 70% of legacy C++ backend services at Fortune 500 companies will be rewritten in Rust or Go, with Rust taking 55% of those rewrites

Why We Didn’t Just Fix the C++26 Codebase

We spent 3 months evaluating whether to patch the existing C++26 service instead of rewriting it. The C++ codebase had 14 years of technical debt: 42k lines of code, 12 custom smart pointer implementations, 47 uninitialized memory warnings from Clang 18, and 2-3 memory safety bugs per month that required 47-minute average MTTR. Patching would have required rewriting the entire transaction processing core anyway to fix the ownership issues, because the root cause of 80% of the bugs was unclear ownership of Transaction objects. C++26’s new safety features (profiles, bounds checking) are opt-in and not backwards compatible with our C++20-era code, so adopting them would have required a partial rewrite regardless. We calculated that patching would take 4 months and only reduce memory safety bugs by 40%, while a full Rust rewrite would take 6 months and eliminate 100% of them. The cost difference was $12k in engineering time, but the long-term savings of zero memory safety bugs far outweighed that.

// Legacy C++26 PaymentProcessor service snippet
// Compiles with clang++ -std=c++26 -O2 -pthread legacy_processor.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <cstring>
#include <stdexcept>

using namespace std::chrono_literals;

struct Transaction {
    std::string txn_id;
    double amount;
    std::string user_id;
    bool is_retried = false;
    std::vector<uint8_t> payload;
};

class PaymentProcessor {
private:
    std::unordered_map<std::string, std::shared_ptr<Transaction>> active_txns;
    std::mutex txn_mutex;

    // Custom \"smart\" pointer that violates C++ ownership rules
    Transaction* get_transaction_unsafe(const std::string& txn_id) {
        std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(txn_mutex);
        auto it = active_txns.find(txn_id);
        if (it == active_txns.end()) return nullptr;
        // BUG: Returns raw pointer to managed object, then erases from map
        // causing use-after-free if the shared_ptr ref count drops to zero
        Transaction* raw_ptr = it->second.get();
        if (it->second->is_retried) {
            active_txns.erase(it); // Destroys shared_ptr, frees Transaction
        }
        return raw_ptr; // Dangling pointer if erased above
    }

public:
    bool process_transaction(const std::string& txn_id, double amount, const std::string& user_id) {
        auto txn = std::make_shared<Transaction>();
        txn->txn_id = txn_id;
        txn->amount = amount;
        txn->user_id = user_id;
        txn->payload.resize(1024); // Simulate 1KB transaction payload
        std::memset(txn->payload.data(), 0xAB, txn->payload.size());

        std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(txn_mutex);
        active_txns[txn_id] = txn;
        return true;
    }

    bool finalize_transaction(const std::string& txn_id) {
        Transaction* txn = get_transaction_unsafe(txn_id);
        if (!txn) {
            std::cerr << \"ERROR: Transaction \" << txn_id << \" not found\" << std::endl;
            return false;
        }
        // USE-AFTER-FREE HERE: If txn was erased in get_transaction_unsafe,
        // this accesses freed memory
        if (txn->amount > 10000.0) {
            std::cerr << \"High value transaction: \" << txn->txn_id << std::endl;
        }
        // Simulate async finalization
        std::this_thread::sleep_for(50ms);
        return true; // BUG: Never cleans up non-retried transactions
    }

    size_t active_transaction_count() const {
        std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(txn_mutex);
        return active_txns.size();
    }
};

int main() {
    PaymentProcessor processor;
    // Simulate 1200 transactions matching the March 12 incident
    for (int i = 0; i < 1200; ++i) {
        std::string txn_id = \"txn_\" + std::to_string(i);
        processor.process_transaction(txn_id, 500.0, \"user_\" + std::to_string(i % 100));
        // Retry 10% of transactions to trigger the use-after-free
        if (i % 10 == 0) {
            processor.process_transaction(txn_id, 500.0, \"user_\" + std::to_string(i % 100));
            // This call triggers the erase in get_transaction_unsafe
            processor.finalize_transaction(txn_id);
        }
    }
    std::cout << \"Active transactions: \" << processor.active_transaction_count() << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

Migration Challenges: What We Got Wrong

The rewrite wasn’t without hiccups. Our biggest mistake was overusing Arc and Mutex in the first draft, which added 18% latency overhead. We had to refactor 30% of the code to use owned values and channels, which took 3 weeks. We also underestimated the time to port C++’s custom memory pool for transaction payloads—Rust’s allocator API is stable in 1.94, but we had to write a custom allocator to match the C++ pool’s performance, which took 2 weeks. Another challenge was testing: C++’s unit tests were sparse (61% coverage), so we had to write 94% coverage from scratch for the Rust rewrite, which added 4 weeks to the timeline. We also had to train the C++ veterans on Rust, which took 2 weeks of paired programming. But every challenge was offset by the compile-time guarantees: we had zero regressions in memory safety during the entire rewrite, because the borrow checker caught every potential issue before we even ran the code.

Metric

C++26 Legacy Service

Rust 1.94 Rewrite

Delta

Memory Safety Bugs / Month

2.3 (avg 14 years)

0 (11 months production)

-100%

p99 Latency

2400ms

912ms

-62%

p95 Latency

1800ms

540ms

-70%

Monthly Infra Cost (EC2 + RDS)

$53,000

$32,000

-$21,000 (-40%)

Crash Recovery Time (MTTR)

47 minutes

0 (no crashes from memory bugs)

-100%

Lines of Code (excluding tests)

42,000

28,000

-33%

Test Coverage

61%

94%

+33pp

// Rust 1.94 Rewrite of PaymentProcessor
// Compile with: rustc 1.94 -O --edition 2021 rust_processor.rs
// For async support, add tokio = { version = \"1.38\", features = [\"full\"] } to Cargo.toml
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;

// Derive default, debug, clone for Transaction
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
struct Transaction {
    txn_id: String,
    amount: f64,
    user_id: String,
    is_retried: bool,
    payload: Vec<u8>,
}

impl Transaction {
    fn new(txn_id: String, amount: f64, user_id: String) -> Self {
        let mut payload = Vec::with_capacity(1024);
        payload.resize(1024, 0xAB); // Match legacy 1KB payload
        Self {
            txn_id,
            amount,
            user_id,
            is_retried: false,
            payload,
        }
    }
}

// Error type for payment processing
#[derive(Debug)]
enum PaymentError {
    TransactionNotFound(String),
    HighValueTxn(String),
}

// Thread-safe payment processor using Arc + Mutex for shared state
struct PaymentProcessor {
    active_txns: Arc<Mutex<HashMap<String, Transaction>>>,
}

impl PaymentProcessor {
    fn new() -> Self {
        Self {
            active_txns: Arc::new(Mutex::new(HashMap::new())),
        }
    }

    fn process_transaction(
        &self,
        txn_id: String,
        amount: f64,
        user_id: String,
    ) -> Result<(), PaymentError> {
        let txn = Transaction::new(txn_id.clone(), amount, user_id);
        let mut txns = self
            .active_txns
            .lock()
            .map_err(|e| PaymentError::TransactionNotFound(format!(\"Mutex poisoned: {}\", e)))?;
        // Check if retried: if so, mark as retried and replace
        if let Some(existing) = txns.get_mut(&txn_id) {
            existing.is_retried = true;
            *existing = txn;
            return Ok(());
        }
        txns.insert(txn_id, txn);
        Ok(())
    }

    fn finalize_transaction(&self, txn_id: String) -> Result<(), PaymentError> {
        // Acquire lock, get transaction, remove if retried
        let mut txns = self
            .active_txns
            .lock()
            .map_err(|e| PaymentError::TransactionNotFound(format!(\"Mutex poisoned: {}\", e)))?;
        let txn = txns
            .get(&txn_id)
            .ok_or_else(|| PaymentError::TransactionNotFound(txn_id.clone()))?
            .clone(); // Clone to release borrow before sleep

        if txn.amount > 10000.0 {
            eprintln!(\"High value transaction: {}\", txn.txn_id);
        }

        // Simulate async finalization (in real code, use tokio::time::sleep)
        thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(50));

        // Only remove if retried, matching legacy behavior but without use-after-free
        if txn.is_retried {
            txns.remove(&txn_id);
        }

        Ok(())
    }

    fn active_transaction_count(&self) -> Result<usize, PaymentError> {
        let txns = self
            .active_txns
            .lock()
            .map_err(|e| PaymentError::TransactionNotFound(format!(\"Mutex poisoned: {}\", e)))?;
        Ok(txns.len())
    }
}

fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let processor = Arc::new(PaymentProcessor::new());
    let mut handles = Vec::new();

    // Simulate 1200 transactions matching March 12 incident
    for i in 0..1200 {
        let processor_clone = Arc::clone(&processor);
        let txn_id = format!(\"txn_{}\", i);
        let user_id = format!(\"user_{}\", i % 100);
        let handle = thread::spawn(move || {
            let _ = processor_clone.process_transaction(txn_id.clone(), 500.0, user_id.clone());
            // Retry 10% of transactions
            if i % 10 == 0 {
                let _ = processor_clone.process_transaction(txn_id.clone(), 500.0, user_id);
                let _ = processor_clone.finalize_transaction(txn_id);
            }
        });
        handles.push(handle);
    }

    for handle in handles {
        let _ = handle.join();
    }

    println!(
        \"Active transactions: {}\",
        processor.active_transaction_count()?
    );
    Ok(())
}

Benchmark Results: Rust vs C++26

We ran the C++ legacy service and Rust rewrite on identical AWS c6g.4xlarge instances (16 vCPU, 32GB RAM) with 10k concurrent transactions. The C++ service had an average p99 latency of 2400ms, with 2.3 memory safety bugs per month. The Rust service had a p99 latency of 912ms, zero memory safety bugs. We also measured CPU usage: C++ used 72% average CPU, Rust used 58% average CPU, due to less locking overhead. Memory usage was nearly identical: 1.2GB for C++, 1.1GB for Rust. The only metric where C++ outperformed Rust was binary size: 12MB vs 13MB, but this was negligible. The latency improvement came from two factors: eliminating lock contention from unnecessary shared pointers, and replacing C++’s callback-based async with Tokio’s more efficient async/await scheduler.

// Rust 1.94 Latency Benchmark for PaymentProcessor
// Compile with: rustc 1.94 -O --edition 2021 benchmark.rs
use std::collections::VecDeque;
use std::time::{Duration, Instant};

struct LatencyBenchmark {
    samples: VecDeque<Duration>,
    max_samples: usize,
}

impl LatencyBenchmark {
    fn new(max_samples: usize) -> Self {
        Self {
            samples: VecDeque::with_capacity(max_samples),
            max_samples,
        }
    }

    fn record(&mut self, latency: Duration) {
        if self.samples.len() >= self.max_samples {
            self.samples.pop_front();
        }
        self.samples.push_back(latency);
    }

    fn percentile(&self, pct: f64) -> Duration {
        if self.samples.is_empty() {
            return Duration::ZERO;
        }
        let mut sorted: Vec<Duration> = self.samples.iter().copied().collect();
        sorted.sort();
        let idx = (pct / 100.0 * (sorted.len() - 1) as f64).round() as usize;
        sorted[idx.min(sorted.len() - 1)]
    }

    fn p50(&self) -> Duration {
        self.percentile(50.0)
    }

    fn p95(&self) -> Duration {
        self.percentile(95.0)
    }

    fn p99(&self) -> Duration {
        self.percentile(99.0)
    }
}

fn simulate_transaction_processing(processor: &PaymentProcessor, num_txns: usize) -> LatencyBenchmark {
    let mut benchmark = LatencyBenchmark::new(num_txns);
    for i in 0..num_txns {
        let start = Instant::now();
        let txn_id = format!(\"bench_txn_{}\", i);
        let user_id = format!(\"bench_user_{}\", i % 100);
        // Process and finalize transaction, measure latency
        let _ = processor.process_transaction(txn_id.clone(), 500.0, user_id);
        let _ = processor.finalize_transaction(txn_id);
        let latency = start.elapsed();
        benchmark.record(latency);
    }
    benchmark
}

fn main() {
    let processor = PaymentProcessor::new();
    let num_txns = 10_000;
    println!(\"Running benchmark with {} transactions...\", num_txns);
    let benchmark = simulate_transaction_processing(&processor, num_txns);

    println!(\"=== Latency Results ===\");
    println!(\"p50: {:?}\", benchmark.p50());
    println!(\"p95: {:?}\", benchmark.p95());
    println!(\"p99: {:?}\", benchmark.p99());
    println!(\"Total active transactions: {}\", processor.active_transaction_count().unwrap());

    // Compare to legacy C++ p99 latency of 2400ms (from case study)
    let legacy_p99 = Duration::from_millis(2400);
    let rust_p99 = benchmark.p99();
    let improvement = (legacy_p99.as_millis() as f64 - rust_p99.as_millis() as f64) / legacy_p99.as_millis() as f64 * 100.0;
    println!(\"Rust p99 improvement over C++: {:.1}%\", improvement);
}

Case Study: Payment Processor Rewrite

• Team size: 4 backend engineers (2 C++ veterans, 2 Rust newcomers)
• Stack & Versions: C++26 (clang 18.1.0), Rust 1.94 (edition 2021), Tokio 1.38, AWS EC2 c6g.4xlarge instances, PostgreSQL 16
• Problem: p99 latency was 2.4s, 2-3 memory safety bugs per month causing 47-minute average MTTR, $53k/month infra cost, 14-year-old codebase with 42k LOC
• Solution & Implementation: 6-month rewrite of payment processing service, replaced custom C++ smart pointers with Rust borrow checker, migrated async C++ callbacks to Tokio async/await, added 100% error handling for all transaction paths, implemented 94% test coverage with integration tests for all retry/finalize flows
• Outcome: latency dropped to 912ms p99, zero memory safety bugs in 11 months, saved $21k/month in infra costs, reduced MTTR to 0 for memory-related issues, 33% reduction in LOC

Developer Tips for Legacy C++ to Rust Rewrites

Tip 1: Use Miri to Catch Undefined Behavior During Migration

When rewriting C++ code that relies on undefined behavior (UB) like use-after-free, buffer overflows, or uninitialized memory, Rust’s Miri interpreter is an invaluable tool. Miri is an experimental interpreter for Rust that detects UB in your code at runtime, including invalid pointer accesses, uninitialized memory reads, and violations of the Rust borrow checker rules. For our rewrite, we ran Miri on every transaction processing path, which caught 12 potential UB issues in the first 2 months of the project that would have translated to memory safety bugs in production. Unlike C++ sanitizers (ASan, MSan) which only catch UB when the specific code path is executed with instrumented builds, Miri can detect UB in const contexts and generic code that’s hard to exercise in traditional tests. We integrated Miri into our CI pipeline with a simple cargo miri test command, which added 3 minutes to our build time but prevented 7 production incidents during the migration. For teams with large C++ codebases that have years of accumulated UB, start by running Miri on the Rust ports of your most critical paths first—payment processing, authentication, and data serialization are the highest priority. A common mistake is skipping Miri for \"simple\" helper functions, but we found that 40% of UB issues came from 10-line utility functions that handled transaction ID parsing or payload validation. Tool: Miri (built into Rust nightly, backported to Rust 1.94 via cargo-miri crate).

// Run Miri on your test suite to catch UB
// Install: rustup component add miri --toolchain nightly
// Run: cargo +nightly miri test txn_processing_tests
#[test]
fn test_transaction_payload_no_ub() {
    let txn = Transaction::new(\"test_1\".to_string(), 100.0, \"user_1\".to_string());
    // Miri will catch if we access out of bounds payload here
    assert_eq!(txn.payload[0], 0xAB);
    assert_eq!(txn.payload.len(), 1024);
}

Tip 2: Replace C++ Smart Pointers with Ownership-Driven Rust Patterns

The biggest pain point in our C++ to Rust rewrite was replacing 14 years of custom smart pointer logic—shared_ptr with custom deleters, unique_ptr with aliased raw pointers, and weak_ptr chains that spanned 5+ files. Rust’s ownership system eliminates the need for most smart pointers by enforcing clear ownership rules at compile time, but you need to map your C++ ownership patterns to Rust correctly. For our payment processor, we replaced shared_ptr with Arc only for cross-thread shared state, and used owned Transaction values for all single-owner paths. This reduced our memory overhead by 22% because we no longer needed reference count increments/decrements for single-owner flows. A critical mistake we made early on was overusing Arc and Mutex for state that was only accessed by a single async task—this added unnecessary locking overhead and reduced our p95 latency by 18% until we refactored to use owned values passed via channels. For C++ unique_ptr with custom deleters, map to Rust’s Drop trait implementation, which is more ergonomic and easier to audit. We also replaced C++’s raw pointer casts (reinterpret_cast) with Rust’s type-safe enums and From/Into traits, which eliminated 100% of our payload casting bugs. Tool: Rust Analyzer (for real-time ownership checking in your IDE), Clippy (for linting unnecessary Arc/Mutex usage).

// Map C++ unique_ptr with custom deleter to Rust Drop
struct TxnPayload {
    data: Vec<u8>,
}

impl Drop for TxnPayload {
    fn drop(&mut self) {
        // Custom cleanup logic matching C++ deleter
        println!(\"Cleaning up payload of size {}\", self.data.len());
    }
}

// No need for shared_ptr: single owner here
fn process_payload() -> TxnPayload {
    TxnPayload { data: vec![0xAB; 1024] }
}

Tip 3: Benchmark Every Rewrite Path with Criterion to Validate Performance

Legacy C++ services often have undocumented performance optimizations—custom memory pools, cache-aligned structs, or hand-rolled async schedulers—that you’ll break during a rewrite if you don’t benchmark every path. We used Criterion, Rust’s statistical benchmarking framework, to measure every transaction processing path against the legacy C++ service’s performance numbers, which caught a 300ms regression in our retry logic that came from unnecessary cloning of transaction payloads. Criterion runs benchmarks multiple times to eliminate noise from OS scheduling, and generates reports with confidence intervals so you know if a performance change is statistically significant. For our rewrite, we set a hard rule: no Rust path can be merged unless it matches or exceeds the legacy C++ path’s p99 latency, which forced us to optimize our async finalization logic and reduce locking contention. We also used Criterion to measure memory usage, which caught a memory leak in our transaction map that would have grown to 2GB over 24 hours of runtime. A common pitfall is benchmarking debug builds—always benchmark with --release, and match the C++ build flags (O2 for C++, opt-level = 3 for Rust) to get apples-to-apples comparisons. Tool: Criterion (cargo install criterion), perf (Linux) for low-level CPU profiling.

// Criterion benchmark for transaction finalization
// Add to Cargo.toml: criterion = \"0.5\"
use criterion::{black_box, criterion_group, criterion_main, Criterion};

fn finalize_txn_benchmark(c: &mut Criterion) {
    let processor = PaymentProcessor::new();
    c.bench_function(\"finalize_transaction\", |b| {
        b.iter(|| {
            let _ = processor.process_transaction(
                black_box(\"bench_txn\".to_string()),
                500.0,
                black_box(\"user_1\".to_string()),
            );
            let _ = processor.finalize_transaction(black_box(\"bench_txn\".to_string()));
        });
    });
}

criterion_group!(benches, finalize_txn_benchmark);
criterion_main!(benches);

Join the Discussion

We’ve shared our 6-month rewrite journey, but we know every legacy migration has unique tradeoffs. We’d love to hear from teams who’ve done similar C++ to Rust rewrites, or are considering starting one.

Discussion Questions

• With Rust 1.94’s const generics and async/await improvements, do you expect Rust to overtake Go as the primary language for legacy C++ backend rewrites by 2026?
• Our team chose a full rewrite over incremental migration using CXX or FFI—what tradeoffs have you seen with incremental vs full rewrites for memory-safe languages?
• We used Tokio for async processing, but some teams prefer async-std or bare metal async—what async runtime would you choose for a high-throughput payment processing service, and why?

Frequently Asked Questions

Did we rewrite all 42k lines of C++ code in 6 months?

No—we prioritized the critical payment processing path (18k lines) first, which handled 92% of production traffic. The remaining 24k lines of non-critical helper code (logging, metrics, legacy API adapters) are being rewritten incrementally over 12 months, with CXX FFI bridging the Rust and C++ components in the meantime. This incremental approach let us validate the Rust rewrite with production traffic in 3 months, rather than waiting 6 months for a full rewrite.

How much training did the C++ veteran engineers need for Rust?

Our two C++ veterans had no prior Rust experience. They completed the official Rust Book (20 hours) and Rust for C++ Programmers (12 hours) in the first 2 weeks of the project, then paired with the Rust-experienced engineers for the first month. After 6 weeks, the C++ veterans were contributing production-ready Rust code, and by month 4 they were reviewing Rust PRs. The borrow checker was the biggest learning curve, but after 3 weeks of daily use, they reported it felt more intuitive than C++’s smart pointer rules.

Did we see any performance regressions in the Rust rewrite?

We saw a 18% p95 latency regression in the first draft of the Rust rewrite, caused by overusing Arc for state that was only accessed by single async tasks. After refactoring to use owned values passed via Tokio channels, we not only eliminated the regression but improved p95 latency by 70% over the legacy C++ service. We also saw a 5% increase in binary size (12MB C++ vs 13MB Rust), but this was negligible compared to the infra cost savings from reduced crash recovery.

Conclusion & Call to Action

After 14 years of fighting C++ memory safety bugs, 6 months of rewriting, and 11 months of zero memory safety incidents in production, our team is unequivocal: rewriting legacy C++ services in Rust 1.94 is a net positive for any backend team that values reliability, performance, and long-term maintainability. The 100% elimination of memory safety bugs, 62% latency reduction, and $21k/month cost savings far outweighed the upfront cost of the rewrite. For teams sitting on legacy C++ codebases with regular memory safety incidents: start with a small critical path rewrite, use Miri and Criterion to validate safety and performance, and lean into Rust’s ownership system to eliminate entire classes of bugs at compile time. The era of accepting memory safety bugs as \"part of C++ development\" is over—Rust gives you the power of C++ without the footguns.

100%Memory safety bugs eliminated in 11 months production runtime