this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
166 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

77090 readers
2514 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pryre@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think the other takeaway here is that it was found in a section marked "unsafe". At the very least, that's a useful tool for the Devs to isolate potential problem areas. Comparing that to a pure C codebase where the problem could be anywhere.

[–] hummingbird@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

The funny part is: the fix does not change the unsafe block at all. The issue is elsewhere in safe rust code.

[–] KexPilot@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 17 minutes ago)

No. The issue is that an assumption they make in the unsafe block does not actually always hold true. They changed the safe rust code to strenghten the (incorrect) assumption they made in the first place, because that is way easier than rearchitecting the unsafe part. I.e. if the unsafe part was somehow to be written safely, the mitigation they introduced now would not result in any difference in behaviour, it would be correct behaviour both before and after.

Tldr: the problem lies in the unsafe part

[–] pryre@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I'll admit, I haven't looked at the code. I would stand by my comment of the unsafe block being a start point.

Countering that however, what is the difference to just debugging effectively? Not sure. I suppose it's down to the people that identified it and fixed it at the end of the day to say if there was any benefit.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 5 hours ago

doesn't change anything if you can't avoid having to write the unsafe parts