Rust can have the same ABI as C - rewriting NSS in Rust should not pose ABI problems.
Wrap existing C with safe Rust, not the other way around! We don't rewrite unsafe C code in Unsafe Rust so that it can be called from all the unsafe C code in UNIX. Such a translation is so pointless and error prone.
I can't even believe I'm the one being called backwards here.
They're definitely not. The power of Rust is not avoiding all `unsafe` ever, but wrapping that unsafe into finite-scope, safe wrappers. Something like mmap would presumably interface with the OS's internal memory management routines, which would definitely have to have `unsafe` somewhere since they're hitting the hardware, but it seems very reasonable for the amount of unsafe exposed to much reduced (possibly even to zero). See, for instance, http://os.phil-opp.com/modifying-page-tables.html . Basically, as soon as you're above the absolute raw hardware level, you can start introducing extra help to reduce unsafety/catch bugs.
In any case, code inside `unsafe` still benefits from all the conventional Rust checks, e.g. iterating over a slice won't go out of bounds due to a typo in the loop even inside `unsafe`, nor will references accidentally become dangling. (Of course, the `unsafe` block may do something explicitly that causes either of these problems, but this exact same risk is pervasive in all C code, rather than just around explicitly marked areas.)
> Wrap existing C with safe Rust, not the other way around! We don't rewrite unsafe C code in Unsafe Rust so that it can be called from all the unsafe C code in UNIX. Such a translation is so pointless and error prone.
Note that this is exactly what is done now, the features of Rust for making safe interfaces makes Rust often a far nicer way to use C interfaces than C itself, without overhead (IMO, of course). See http://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/04/24/Rust-Once-Run-Everywher... , for example. Of course, zero-overhead Rust is only as safe as the C code it wraps, it can't (in general) protect against the C code not correctly implementing its stated contract(s).
Maybe you could separately map shared RefCells to guard the pages returned by the mmap wrapper? If the region is backed by a file, you'd need to check those RefCells on every IO access too, though.
Examples would be:
* read-only: &ROMemMap -> &[u8]
* read-write: &mut RWMemMap -> &mut [u8]
* write-only: fn set(self: &mut WOMemMap, i: usize, b: u8),
or more generally: &mut WOMemMap -> &mut [WriteOnly<u8>] where WriteOnly<T> has fn set(&mut self, T)
Now for the shared case, consider this: aliasing rules can be avoided with atomic operations, i.e. Arc<AtomicUsize> is shared and can be safely (atomically) read/written by multiple threads.
In the multi-process case, you could provide an atomic API, although we don't currently seem to expose byte-level atomics (likely not present on some platforms) so if you wanted to write a demo you'd need to use the unstable intrinsics atm.
FWIW restricted to single-threaded code, this results in the Cell get/set API which is not hardware-atomic but cannot overlap with other accesses to the same memory, as Cell doesn't implement Share so any threading abstraction will block you from doing any kind of sharing of Cells.
That is, you can share &[Cell<u8>] pointing to any bag of bytes that sits in read-write memory, and anything in the same thread can read or write to it, safely.
However, as you say, exposing a safe mmap version for libraries to call is a different problem with different difficulties. eddyb's sibling suggestion of teasing out the multiple entangled uses of mmap sounds like a good one, although someone would have to experiment with it to be sure.
Cool stuff though, I really hope rust catches fire soon. I love that it has revitalized the appeal of implementing operating system level projects like text editors and shells. I never would have wanted to try and write a windowing system before Rust. Now that's something I'm actively investigating for fun.