Rust Safety-Critical Software: How Modern Programming Prevents Life-Threatening Bugs

#programming #devto #rust #softwareengineering

As a best-selling author, I invite you to explore my books on Amazon. Don't forget to follow me on Medium and show your support. Thank you! Your support means the world!

When we build software for machines that fly, medical devices that keep people alive, or cars that drive themselves, getting it wrong isn't an option. A single bug can have irreversible consequences. For decades, building this kind of software meant using a small set of trusted tools, involving immense manual effort to prove the code was safe. Today, a new tool is changing that conversation: the Rust programming language. I want to talk about why, and how it works in practice.

The core problem in safety-critical software is managing complexity and uncertainty. You have sensors feeding in data, actuators that must respond, and a world full of unexpected events. Traditional languages like C, while powerful, place the entire burden of safety on the programmer. You must manually ensure you never access freed memory, never corrupt data between tasks, and handle every possible error. Teams spend more time reviewing and testing code than writing it, trying to catch mistakes the language itself allows.

Rust approaches this from a different angle. It is designed around a simple, powerful rule enforced by the compiler: you can either have multiple read-only views of some data, or one single writable view. This is its ownership system. This rule, checked as your code compiles, completely prevents entire categories of bugs—like data races where two tasks conflict over the same memory—from existing in the first place. For a system controlling an airplane's flaps, this isn't just convenient; it transforms the foundation of what we can trust.

Let's make this concrete. Imagine you are writing the monitoring software for a medical infusion pump. It must track fluid levels, pressure, and watch for blockages. In C, a common bug might involve a sensor reading function overwriting memory used by the safety logic. In Rust, the compiler sees that attempt and stops you. You are forced to structure your code in a way that makes such interference impossible. The safety is baked into the design.

Consider this example of a system monitor. It's a simplified look at how you might structure a critical component.

// A type representing every state our system can be in.
// Using an enum forces us to handle each case explicitly.
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq)]
enum OperationalMode {
    Standby,
    Running,
    Fault(fault::FaultCode),
    EmergencyHalt,
}

// A structure holding our core system data.
// The 'pub' fields are public, but their types are controlled.
pub struct ControlUnit {
    mode: OperationalMode,
    battery_voltage: f32,
    internal_temperature: f32,
    // The Mutex ensures safe access from multiple contexts.
    sensor_data: Arc<Mutex<SensorReadings>>,
}

impl ControlUnit {
    // A critical transition function. It returns a Result,
    // forcing the caller to acknowledge success or failure.
    pub fn enter_running_mode(&mut self) -> Result<(), TransitionError> {
        // Pre-condition checks are mandatory.
        if self.battery_voltage < MINIMUM_VOLTAGE {
            return Err(TransitionError::LowPower);
        }
        if self.internal_temperature > MAX_SAFE_TEMP {
            return Err(TransitionError::OverTemp);
        }
        // We can only proceed if we're currently in Standby.
        match self.mode {
            OperationalMode::Standby => {
                self.mode = OperationalMode::Running;
                self.log_transition("Standby -> Running");
                Ok(()) // Explicit success
            }
            _ => Err(TransitionError::InvalidMode),
        }
    }

    // A function to update from a sensor thread.
    pub fn update_sensor_readings(&self, new_readings: SensorReadings) {
        // Lock the mutex. Rust guarantees we release it.
        let mut data = self.sensor_data.lock().unwrap();
        *data = new_readings;
        // When 'data' goes out of scope here, the lock is automatically released.
        // No chance of accidentally forgetting to unlock.
    }
}

This style of code shows Rust's philosophy. Errors are values (Result), not hidden exceptions. State is explicit and must be transitioned deliberately. Concurrency is managed with types (Arc<Mutex<T>>) that make incorrect usage a compile-time error. This moves a huge portion of traditional "safety testing" into the "safety compilation" phase.

Now, how does this compare to the old guard, like Ada? Ada was a monumental step forward, introducing strong typing and contracts to high-integrity systems. Its focus is on specifying what a program should do and checking it at runtime. Rust shares that desire for correctness but often pushes the checks to compile time. Where an Ada program might specify a range for an integer and throw an exception at runtime if it's violated, Rust encourages you to create a newtype that can only hold valid values, catching the problem earlier.

The real frontier, however, is formal verification. This is the process of mathematically proving that your code satisfies certain properties. Think of it as the ultimate, exhaustive test. Rust's strictness makes it a surprisingly good partner for this. Because the language rules out so much undefined behavior, the tools that do the proving have a cleaner, more predictable world to analyze.

One such tool is Kani, a model checker for Rust. It doesn't run your code with example data; it analyzes all possible logical paths through it, up to certain limits. Let's see how it might be used.

// Assume we've defined a `BoundarySensor` type that holds a value between 0.0 and 100.0.
#[kani::proof]
fn test_sensor_invariant() {
    // Kani will conceptually try every possible f64 value here.
    let raw_value: f64 = kani::any();

    let sensor_result = BoundarySensor::new(raw_value);

    // The property we want to prove: If creation succeeded,
    // the inner value is always in bounds.
    match sensor_result {
        Ok(sensor) => {
            assert!(sensor.value() >= 0.0 && sensor.value() <= 100.0);
        }
        Err(_) => {
            // If it failed, we expect the raw value was out of bounds.
            // This is harder to state for f64, but shows the concept.
        }
    }
    // If Kani completes, it has proven no input can violate our assert.
}

This is a shift in mindset. We are no longer asking, "Did my test pass?" We are asking, "Can the tool find any input that breaks my rule?" For a function calculating a flight control surface's deflection angle, this level of assurance is invaluable.

All of this leads to the practical hurdle: certification. Industries have well-defined rules like DO-178C for avionics or ISO 26262 for automobiles. These standards don't certify a programming language; they certify a process and the resulting object code. The question is: does using Rust make that process easier or harder?

The evidence suggests it can simplify parts of it. A major objective of these standards is to show the absence of certain classes of errors—like runtime memory corruption or data races. In C, you demonstrate this through massive test campaigns and manual review. With Rust, the compiler's borrow checker provides a built-in, repeatable, automated argument that those specific errors cannot occur in the source code. This can potentially reduce the volume of required test evidence for those hazards.

However, it's not automatic. You must also certify the Rust compiler itself, or trust a qualified one. You need to understand the machine code it generates. The unsafe keyword, used for low-level operations, becomes a critical point of focus and must be strictly justified and isolated. The community, through efforts like the Rust Embedded Working Group's safety-critical guidelines, is actively building the patterns and best practices for this.

My own experience prototyping control systems has shown me where the friction lies. The initial learning curve is steep. The compiler feels restrictive. But once you adapt to its way of thinking, a remarkable thing happens: the code that finally compiles often works correctly on the first run. The time you once spent debugging null pointer dereferences or race conditions is now spent on the actual logic of your application.

The tooling ecosystem supports this. cargo clippy acts as an automated senior reviewer, suggesting more robust idioms. cargo auditer checks your dependencies for known security flaws. For testing, libraries like proptest allow you to specify rules your code must always follow and then throw randomly generated data at it, trying to find a breaking case.

Here is an example of how you might test a safety function with proptest:

use proptest::prelude::*;

// A function that must always return a non-negative value.
fn safe_calculation(input: i32) -> i32 {
    // Some complex logic...
    input.abs() + 1
}

proptest! {
    #[test]
    fn test_always_non_negative(a: i32) {
        let result = safe_calculation(a);
        // This property must hold for *any* i32 input.
        assert!(result >= 0);
    }
}

Building a safety-critical system in Rust today feels like being an early explorer. The map isn't completely filled in, but the terrain is fundamentally more stable. You are standing on a foundation that actively prevents you from making certain catastrophic mistakes. For engineers responsible for systems where lives are on the line, that is not just a technical improvement—it is a profound shift in responsibility. The machine is now helping us, in a verifiable way, to build safer machines.

The future will involve more tools like Kani, more certified toolchains, and more documented case studies. But the principle is established. By designing a language where the compiler understands thread safety and memory lifetimes, we have created a powerful ally in the mission to write software that must not fail. It changes the question from "How do we test for all the errors?" to "How do we best use a tool that prevents the errors in the first place?" For the safety-critical world, that is a question worth answering.

📘 Checkout my latest ebook for free on my channel!

Be sure to like, share, comment, and subscribe to the channel!

101 Books

101 Books is an AI-driven publishing company co-founded by author Aarav Joshi. By leveraging advanced AI technology, we keep our publishing costs incredibly low—some books are priced as low as $4—making quality knowledge accessible to everyone.

Check out our book Golang Clean Code available on Amazon.

Stay tuned for updates and exciting news. When shopping for books, search for Aarav Joshi to find more of our titles. Use the provided link to enjoy special discounts!