this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
179 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

77790 readers
2432 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
[–] john_t@piefed.ee 107 points 1 day ago (10 children)

No one said rust was invulnerable.

[–] pryre@lemmy.world 84 points 1 day ago (5 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 11 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.

[–] pryre@lemmy.world 1 points 11 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)