this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
172 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
77090 readers
2424 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- 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
view the rest of the comments
No one said rust was invulnerable.
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.
The funny part is: the fix does not change the unsafe block at all. The issue is elsewhere in safe rust code.
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