redbeeswimming

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by redbeeswimming 10mo ago

   > When I wrote "98% safe code" I meant the code that can be automatically verified by the compiler. I wish the terminology was better. That depends on what is meant by "automatically verified by the compiler". The com
2. 2.▲
   by redbeeswimming 10mo ago

   > If you're letting safe code in the same module as unsafe code mess with invariants, then the whole module needs to be verified by hand, and should be kept as minimal as feasible. Anything outside the module doesn't need to be
3. 3.▲
   by redbeeswimming 10mo ago

   > Firstly, the existence of unsafe does not inherently mean the code isn’t memory safe. That does not contradict what I wrote. I am confounded by your post, since an article with vulnerabilities in sudo-rs was posted. You can also read
4. 4.▲
   by redbeeswimming 10mo ago

   > The website prioritizes programs with 98% safe code over programs with 0% safe code. Please explain this section of the Rustonomicon. https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/working-with-unsafe.html > This code is 10