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.

▲

inigyou 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Rust wouldn't have helped, because this is a logic bug in the kernel, that creates a memory bug in userspace. The relevant kernel code would probably be marked "unsafe" with or without the bug.

	▲	saghm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Rust wouldn't have helped, because this is a logic bug in the kernel, that creates a memory bug in userspace. Unless I'm misunderstanding, the bug is kernel code accessing out-of-bounds memory in an array. That would 100% not segfault in normal Rust code. > The relevant kernel code would probably be marked "unsafe" with or without the bug. I mean, sure, if you remove the safety rails that prevent you from running off the side of the cliff, then you will in practice likely ending up running off the cliff. If you have to explicitly do that though, it still makes it a lot more obvious that this is a risk than if you refuse to have safety rails anyway for any purpose.