This is a bit sad. Here we have an example of rust and musl struggling whereas C/C++ and glibc does not. That's an oversimplification, but we also had not long ago the rewrite of ... I believe it was coreutils, in rust (or was it utillinux ... but I think it was coreutils), also have issues. Rust needs to toughen up here when it really wants to replace all of C in the linux ecosystem. Alternatively it could admit failure, then people can say that C will be - and remain - the forever king.

This bug is almost certainly not a bug in ripgrep or Rust or musl or any user code at all. Maybe one could complain that musl is using an inferior allocator that is freeing then immediately reallocating the same address.

edit: silly observation: the general Rust practice of using immutable bindings by default and not leaking shadowing bindings out of blocks would have made the bug I think I found less likely.

I would suggest you revisit this in a day or two and reevaluate whether your knee-jerk blaming of rust was appropriate here, then ask yourself what biases led you to do that.

In addition to this likely not being a bug in the code you're pointing at, but the kernel (written in C). musl is literally C code, and that most rust users compile against glibc just like most C users do.

The bug is in the C code that Rust is interacting with. If anything, you seem to be making an argument in favor of replacing even more of the C code with Rust so that this doesn't happen.

What you seem to think is a defense of C is accidentally just providing ammunition to the "rewrite it in Rust" crusade that I'm guessing you're very much not a fan of. There are very solid arguments against rewriting everything in Rust, and you're arguably doing more harm than good by making a counterproductive one.

For starters, musl is a C library, not a Rust library.

A kernel bug and you’re criticizing Rust. Weird take