Rust: Error Handling (6 of 6)

Detecting and handling errors is fundamental to software development in general, but it's an especially pressing topic for software prioritizing robustness and availability. Error handling is also one area where Rust differentiates itself - both in mechanism and meticulousness.

Broadly speaking, we can bin errors into one of three classes:

  1. Compile-time errors - Syntax or ownership errors that prevent a single module from compiling. Rust's compiler tends to output actionable error messages in these cases. Of which you'll likely see many, especially when first learning the language. Just remember: you're aiding a safety verification process.

  2. Link-time errors - Symbol resolution errors that prevent multiple modules from composing. Thanks to cargo, linking errors should be a rarity when working on pure-Rust codebases. But they may appear in large, multilingual projects or when using C/C++ libraries as dependencies.

  3. Runtime errors - Errors caused by a broken invariant or an operation failure, at runtime. This class impacts assurance. It's the subject of this section, we'll look at strategies for handling runtime errors in Rust.

Notice that logical errors (e.g. implementing an incorrect algorithm) are not listed above. We consider these to be general bugs and outside the scope of an error handling discussion.

For errors proper, some developer communities make the below distinction:

  • "Error" referring specifically to catastrophic failures that a program cannot reasonably handle (e.g. exhausting system memory).

  • "Exceptions" being errors that can be "caught" and handled by programmer-defined logic (e.g. a file doesn't exist).

We don't make that distinction here. We'll use the term "error" to capture both the catastrophic and handleable cases.

Option vs Result

Rust's standard library provides two enum types for expressing fallible operations: Option1 and Result2. Strictly speaking, error handling refers only to Result. But the two are conceptually similar and widely used as function return types, so we'll cover both now.


Option conveys that a function could, potentially, have nothing to return. Even though the operation was completed successfully. That's normal behavior.

Since we've now covered both enumerations and generics, try interpreting the definition1 of this standard library type:

pub enum Option<T> {

Notice how the None variant of Option's definition doesn't contain data. This definition encodes the concept of "some type T XOR nothing". Ideal for a fallible operation that may return a result.

An example, one we'll become intimately familiar with later, is an ordered set's get method. Retrieval of an element returns None if that element isn't present the set:

use std::collections::BTreeSet;

let set = BTreeSet::from([1, 2, 3]);

assert_eq!(set.get(&2), Some(&2));
assert_eq!(set.get(&4), None);

Conceptual Checkpoint

There are intricacies in the above BTreeSet usage snippet, related to concepts we introduced in this chapter. Let's solidify understanding:

  • let set: BTreeSet<i32> = ... is inferred. i32 is Rust's default integer type and we're creating a set from an array of 3 integer literals.

  • Thus, get returns Option<&i32> here. The reference operator, &, in this return signature ensures retrieval doesn't move the element out of the set. The set still owns it, we're just checking if it's present.

    • To actually remove the element we'd use a different set method, take, which returns Option<T> (Option<i32> in our example) and transfers ownership.
  • Similarly, the argument to get is of type &i32 (hence set.get(&2) - we don't want the get function to take ownership of the element we're searching for.

    • Why, given that primitive integers can be copied cheaply? Because BTreeSet<T> is a generic container. Items stored in the set could be large and complex objects, not just i32s.


Now Result has an entirely different use case. It conveys that a function could fail to complete an operation. A failure is abnormal, it means a problem needs to be reported or an operation needs to be retried.

In Result's definition2, both variants contain data. The Ok variant encapsulates the output of a successful operation, whereas the Err variant signals failure and encapsulates a custom error type:

pub enum Result<T, E> {

An example, one we've already seen in the context of Chapter 2's CLI tool, is file I/O. Attempting to open a file can fail for several reasons - the file might not exist or we do not have permission to read it. We previously used the ? operator to short-circuit error propagation, but we could also explicitly match the file open Result like so:

fn main() {
use std::fs::File;

match File::open("/path/to/non-existent/file.txt") {
    Ok(f) => println!("Successfully opened: {:?}", f),
    Err(e) => eprintln!("Error occurred: {:?}", e),

Unlike Option, Result is marked with the #[must_use] attribute internally. Whenever you write a function that returns a Result, the caller must explicitly handle both the Ok and Err cases. This built-in enforcement lends itself to another MISRA rule:

[AR, Directive 4.7] Always test error information returned from functions3

While Result provides a convenient mechanism for representing potential failures, and automatically enforces handling, we're still left with the application-specific task of doing the error handling. Generally, we can take one of three approaches:

  1. Assert invariants - Terminate the program immediately if an error occurs. Useful when errors cannot be reasonably recovered from.

  2. Merge and propagate - Merge multiple kinds of errors into a single, opaque error and pass it along to the caller. Useful when we want to abstract away irrelevant details, but still give the caller a chance to respond.

  3. Enumerate and propagate - Pass along detailed error information to the caller. Useful when the caller's response action depends on the exact kind of error that occurred.

To make each approach more concrete, and explore some of the finer details, we'll make modifications to Chapter 2's RC4 library and the corresponding CLI tool.

Rust Errors vs C++ Exceptions

C++ allows two error handling strategies4:

  1. Return codes: A function can return a special value, like -1 or NULL, to implicitly indicate an error has occurred. But the developer must remember to check for this special case at every callsite and interpret its meaning.

    • Accidentally omitting the check is a common violation of Directive 4.7 above, in both C and C++.
  2. Thrown exceptions: exceptions must be caught either by a programmer-defined handler or, if none is provided, the OS itself. So handling is enforced. And they may provide descriptive context.

    • However, C++ exceptions occur outside of regular code flow - one might be propagated from a function so deeply nested that it appears unrelated. This introduces "invisible" exit points for functions, which both violates a different MISRA rule (one we haven't mentioned) and causes some C++ programmers to consider using exceptions a "bad practice".

    • Additionally, unwinding is a performance bottleneck on multi-core systems (due to a global lock)5.

With Result, Rust offers the best of both worlds. Like return codes, Result is passed up via the regular call chain. Like C++ exceptions, Result can't be accidentally ignored and, via the Err variant, provides meaningful context.

Assert Invariants

In the previous chapter, we wrote a constructor for an RC4 cipher instance. By convention, constructors are associated functions named new. Our new function took a single parameter, a key byte array, and asserted an invariant:

pub fn new(key: &[u8]) -> Self {
    // Verify valid key length (40 to 2048 bits)
    assert!(5 <= key.len() && key.len() <= 256);

    // ...more code here...

On one hand, this adheres to an important rule (input validation):

[RR, Directive 4.14] External inputs must be validated3

On the other hand, we made a debatable decision on behalf of our library's users: if the provided key was too short or too long, we'd terminate the program. Users won't have a chance to respond if this error condition is hit.

For certain catastrophic failure cases, the Rust language itself makes a similar decision. For example, say we indexed an array out-of-bounds:

let mut five_item_arr = [0; 5];

for i in 0..6 {
    five_item_arr[i] = i;

The loop will run for 6 iterations, i == 0 through i == 5, but the array only has 5 valid indexes (0 through 4). This program will compile successfully but terminate at runtime with:

thread 'main' panicked at 'index out of bounds: the len is 5 but the index is 5', src/
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace

It's a classic "off-by-one" error. Testing would have helped catch this indexing failure. But not all fatal invariants are easy to test for, so most real-world programs will contain some assertion-based error handling. Including implicit cases like this one.

One goal of testing is to show that a program is robust enough to not hit such assertions in practice, due to checks and/or mitigations. Some number of fatal assertions will always be present, but thorough testing can give us confidence that a program avoids them.

Now in certain cases, we may be able to remove problem potential entirely. For example, we could have initialized the array using an iterator to eliminate the possibility of an out-of-bounds index:

let mut five_item_arr = [0; 5];

for (i, item) in five_item_arr.iter_mut().enumerate() {
    *item = i;

Now let's look at the non-fatal cases - errors we can detect and propagate. We'll refactor our RC4 constructor to demonstrate error propagation strategies.

Merge and Propagate

Recall that if a provided key wasn't the right size, our Chapter 2 RC4 CLI gave the user a descriptive error - essentially re-prompting for a valid-length key. We accomplished that with clap's min_values = 5 and max_values = 256 annotations.

Our library itself (not the CLI front-end) asserted the invariant. The front-end's check just ensured this assertion would never trigger.

Say we wanted the library to enforce a similar check for any program that uses it, front-end or otherwise. We could have it propagate a single, opaque error like so:

impl Rc4 {
    /// Init a new Rc4 stream cipher instance
    pub fn new(key: &[u8]) -> Result<Self, ()> {
        // Verify valid key length (40 to 2048 bits)
        if (key.len() < 5) || (key.len() > 256) {
            return Err(());

        // Zero-init our struct
        let mut rc4 = Rc4 {
            s: [0; 256],
            i: 0,
            j: 0,

        // ...more initialization code here...

        // Return our initialized Rc4

Choosing the unit type ((), an empty value) instead of a custom error type is a "bare bones" approach. One typically better-suited in private, internal APIs. But it does the job, since the caller has to take appropriate action for both the Ok and Err variants of the returned Result. The Ok variant contains a successfully-initialized cipher.

Enumerate and Propagate

For public APIs, a custom error enum is likely preferable to ():

pub enum Rc4Error {

impl Rc4 {
    /// Init a new Rc4 stream cipher instance
    pub fn new(key: &[u8]) -> Result<Self, Rc4Error> {
        const MIN_KEY_LEN: usize = 5;
        const MAX_KEY_LEN: usize = 256;

        // Verify valid key length (40 to 2048 bits)
        if key.len() < MIN_KEY_LEN {
            return Err(Rc4Error::KeyTooShort(MIN_KEY_LEN));
        } else if key.len() > MAX_KEY_LEN {
            return Err(Rc4Error::KeyTooLong(MAX_KEY_LEN));

        // Zero-init our struct
        let mut rc4 = Rc4 {
            s: [0; 256],
            i: 0,
            j: 0,

        // ...more initialization code here...

        // Return our initialized Rc4

In the above, we've opted to enumerate both error conditions (too short and too long) instead using a single KeyLengthInvalid variant or similar. Each variant also contains the threshold length, a minimum for the KeyTooShort variant and a maximum for KeyTooLong.

That level of granularity may or may not be appropriate in this context. It's definitely not a common pattern in stream cipher libraries. But our example demonstrates enumerating various internal errors and passing them along.

It allows a caller to match on error enum variants and handle each case accordingly. Notionally, that'd be something akin to:

use rc4::{Rc4, Rc4Error};

let key = [0x1, 0x2, 0x3];

match Rc4::new(&key) {
    Ok(rc4) => println!("Do en/decryption here!"),
    Err(e) => match e {
        Rc4Error::KeyTooShort(min) => eprintln!("Key len >= {} bytes required!", min),
        Rc4Error::KeyTooLong(max) => eprintln!("Key len <= {} bytes required!", max),

The Error Trait

There's one more important piece to the Rust's error handling puzzle: the Error trait in defined in the standard library6. Implementing this special trait for our Rc4Error type would have two advantages:

  • Clearly marking Rc4Error as an error type - not just an enum that happens to have Error in the name.

  • Enabling richer error reporting, via the source and [currently unstable] backtrace methods of the trait.

However, there's a good reason we won't use this trait in our RC4 library. Recall that our cipher implementation is #![no_std] compatible - it can run any environment, even "bare metal".

The Error trait assumes the presence of an operating system, whose runtime support is needed to capture and print a backtrace. Thus we can't import std::error::Error in a #![no_std] library.

Can't we support that use case?

If omitting the Error trait strikes you as an unsatisfying compromise, you try feature-gating support for this trait as an exercise. That'll entail modifying the Cargo.toml7 build file and implementing the trait behind a cfg macro8. By convention, this feature would be called std and selected with:

cargo build --features="std"

A dependency could chose to enable the optional feature within it's own Cargo.toml entry:

rc4 = { path = "../rc4", version = "0.1.0", features = ["std"] }

This enables the best of both worlds - support embedded systems by default, but allow richer error reporting if a library user enables an optional feature when building for non-embedded targets.


Rust's Result type, not to be confused with the conceptually similar Option, is our main mechanism for reporting runtime errors and enforcing their handling. Like C++ exceptions, it can't be ignored. Unlike C++ exceptions, it's part of the regular call chain.

Error handling is essential for assurance, but the specific actions to be taken are ultimately application specific. We can choose the best approach for each situation: asserting invariants, propagating an opaque error, or propagating specific errors.

That concludes our six-part tour of Rust's core concepts! The rest of this chapter looks at features and tools that help us to build large, ambitious systems in the language.


Enum std::option::Option. The Rust Team (Accessed 2022).


Enum std::error::Error. The Rust Team (Accessed 2022).


MISRA C: 2012 Guidelines for the use of the C language in critical systems (3rd edition). MISRA (2019).


C++ Exceptions: Pros and Cons. Nemanja Trifunovic (2009).


Enum std::error::Error. The Rust Team (Accessed 2022).


Features. The Cargo Book (Accessed 2022).


Conditional compilation. The Rust Reference (Accessed 2022).