-12
Unsafe Rust: living up to its name (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

It is, in large part. The rules on ownership and borrowing mean that it is not supposed to be possible to change memory that something else can be concurrently reading from. That means you are forced to obtain references through protective mechanisms, which should protect from race conditions.

All of that can go out of the window if you use unsafe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Note how the ticket cited is in an unsafe block, because it uses the OS scheduler, not its own. It is not Rust's fault.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Rust doesn't have a scheduler.
    The issue is the false assumption, that the remove operation can safely be done without taking a lock. This can be done in some specific data structures using atomic operations, but here the solution was to just take the lock. The same thing could have happened in a C code base but without the unsafe block indicating where to look for the bug.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Yeah, I'm not saying it's rust's fault. Restricting this to unsafe makes it a lot easier to reason about where such problems can occur.

    I just don't think anyone should give the impression that rust's memory safety is not about race conditions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent