360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

m03-mutability

面向 Rust 可变性与借用检查冲突,围绕错误码提供设计追问、借用规则、内部可变性模式选择及反模式提示,帮助判断何时使用 &mut、Cell、RefCell、Mutex、RwLock 或原子类型;不包含可执行代码或自动修改。

actionbook
热度 41.66
最近更新 2026-10-19 02:01:21
分类:开发依赖:纯提示词应用场景:调试排错 / 概念解释 / 代码审查

安装技能

复制下面的话术发给你的 Agent,它会通过 secure-skills 检索并安装该技能。

执行命令安装此 skill: npx secure-skills-cli add actionbook/rust-skills/m03-mutability
Metadata
name
m03-mutability
description
CRITICAL: Use for mutability issues. Triggers: E0596, E0499, E0502, cannot borrow as mutable, already borrowed as immutable, mut, &mut, interior mutability, Cell, RefCell, Mutex, RwLock, 可变性, 内部可变性, 借用冲突
user-invocable
false

Mutability

Layer 1: Language Mechanics

Core Question

Why does this data need to change, and who can change it?

Before adding interior mutability, understand:

  • Is mutation essential or accidental complexity?
  • Who should control mutation?
  • Is the mutation pattern safe?

Error → Design Question

Error Don't Just Say Ask Instead
E0596 "Add mut" Should this really be mutable?
E0499 "Split borrows" Is the data structure right?
E0502 "Separate scopes" Why do we need both borrows?
RefCell panic "Use try_borrow" Is runtime check appropriate?

Thinking Prompt

Before adding mutability:

  1. Is mutation necessary?

    • Maybe transform → return new value
    • Maybe builder → construct immutably
  2. Who controls mutation?

    • External caller → &mut T
    • Internal logic → interior mutability
    • Concurrent access → synchronized mutability
  3. What's the thread context?

    • Single-thread → Cell/RefCell
    • Multi-thread → Mutex/RwLock/Atomic

Trace Up ↑

When mutability conflicts persist:

E0499/E0502 (borrow conflicts)
    ↑ Ask: Is the data structure designed correctly?
    ↑ Check: m09-domain (should data be split?)
    ↑ Check: m07-concurrency (is async involved?)
Persistent Error Trace To Question
Repeated borrow conflicts m09-domain Should data be restructured?
RefCell in async m07-concurrency Is Send/Sync needed?
Mutex deadlocks m07-concurrency Is the lock design right?

Trace Down ↓

From design to implementation:

"Need mutable access from &self"
    ↓ T: Copy → Cell<T>
    ↓ T: !Copy → RefCell<T>

"Need thread-safe mutation"
    ↓ Simple counters → AtomicXxx
    ↓ Complex data → Mutex<T> or RwLock<T>

"Need shared mutable state"
    ↓ Single-thread: Rc<RefCell<T>>
    ↓ Multi-thread: Arc<Mutex<T>>

Borrow Rules

At any time, you can have EITHER:
├─ Multiple &T (immutable borrows)
└─ OR one &mut T (mutable borrow)

Never both simultaneously.

Quick Reference

Pattern Thread-Safe Runtime Cost Use When
&mut T N/A Zero Exclusive mutable access
Cell<T> No Zero Copy types, no refs needed
RefCell<T> No Runtime check Non-Copy, need runtime borrow
Mutex<T> Yes Lock contention Thread-safe mutation
RwLock<T> Yes Lock contention Many readers, few writers
Atomic* Yes Minimal Simple types (bool, usize)

Error Code Reference

Error Cause Quick Fix
E0596 Borrowing immutable as mutable Add mut or redesign
E0499 Multiple mutable borrows Restructure code flow
E0502 &mut while & exists Separate borrow scopes

Interior Mutability Decision

Scenario Choose
T: Copy, single-thread Cell<T>
T: !Copy, single-thread RefCell<T>
T: Copy, multi-thread AtomicXxx
T: !Copy, multi-thread Mutex<T> or RwLock<T>
Read-heavy, multi-thread RwLock<T>
Simple flags/counters AtomicBool, AtomicUsize

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern Why Bad Better
RefCell everywhere Runtime panics Clear ownership design
Mutex for single-thread Unnecessary overhead RefCell
Ignore RefCell panic Hard to debug Handle or restructure
Lock inside hot loop Performance killer Batch operations

Related Skills

When See
Smart pointer choice m02-resource
Thread safety m07-concurrency
Data structure design m09-domain
Anti-patterns m15-anti-pattern