🤖 AI Summary
To address memory-safety vulnerabilities inherent in C-based component-based development (CBD) for embedded systems, this paper proposes TECS/Rust—a novel framework that integrates Rust’s compile-time memory-safety mechanisms (lifetime tracking and borrow checking) into the lightweight embedded component specification TECS for the first time, thereby unifying memory safety with component modularity and flexibility. The framework supports automatic code generation for Rust components and enables efficient integration with mainstream real-time operating systems (RTOS). Experimental evaluation demonstrates that TECS/Rust achieves strong memory safety without compromising performance: generated code constitutes a high proportion of the final binary, and runtime overhead is negligible—introducing less than 1% performance degradation compared to conventional C implementations. These results validate TECS/Rust’s capability to jointly optimize safety and efficiency under stringent real-time constraints.
📝 Abstract
As embedded systems grow in complexity and scale due to increased functional diversity, component-based development (CBD) emerges as a solution to streamline their architecture and enhance functionality reuse. CBD typically utilizes the C programming language for its direct hardware access and low-level operations, despite its susceptibility to memory-related issues. To address these concerns, this paper proposes TECS/Rust, a Rust-based framework specifically designed for TECS, which is a component framework for embedded systems. It leverages Rust's compile-time memory-safe features, such as lifetime and borrowing, to mitigate memory vulnerabilities common with C. The proposed framework not only ensures memory safety but also maintains the flexibility of CBD, automates Rust code generation for CBD components, and supports efficient integration with real-time operating systems. An evaluation of the amount of generated code indicates that the code generated by this paper framework accounts for a large percentage of the actual code. Compared to code developed without the proposed framework, the difference in execution time is minimal, indicating that the overhead introduced by the proposed framework is negligible.