The interface will have to be `unsafe`, yes (that is, there are conditions that the code calling the functions must satisfy to avoid memory unsafety), but the i

The interface will have to be `unsafe`, yes (that is, there are conditions that the code calling the functions must satisfy to avoid memory unsafety), but the internals can control this unsafety and avoid having more: libc's have vulnerabilities that are not caused by their inherently unsafe interface. The power of Rust is the ability to package up `unsafe`ty behind safe interfaces without adding unnecessary cost, so that most users don't have to be super-careful about avoiding memory corruption. This still works at a low-level like in the implementation of a libc or an operating system[1]. Also, Rust is a more expressive language, which helps avoid bugs (e.g. enums/discriminated unions means the programmer can't accidentally access invalid state), allows writing shared algorithms and data structures efficiently once instead of needing to do the bug-prone task of reimplementing (or taking a performance/safety hit with void*), and, subjectively, may be nicer to read/write . [1]: http://os.phil-opp.com/modifying-page-tables.html http://os.phil-opp.com/modifying-page-tables.html