[0xfedbee]

Moral of the story: using Rust will not automatically make your code bug proof. It can actually introduce bugs that are of totally new breed and hard to debug.

[eigenform]

I know you're intentionally spinning this as a bad thing, but it's really not.

Instead of worrying about simple and very common classes of bugs that can be solved statically with the help of the compiler, you are free to worry about whatever other non-trivial bugs in your program are remaining.

You're obviously free to waste your own time if you'd like.

[nemothekid]

I don't know, the fact that a buggy memory allocator implementation crashed rather than silently worked until it became a CVE seems like a win to me.

[kibwen]

I'm not sure I see where the bug here is due to Rust, or of a totally new breed. And the latter half of the blog post notes that it was fixed less than three hours after first being noticed.

[rablackburn]

And to quote the article itself:

>> (…) it’s a rare case of a kernel memory access check bug that had no security implications.

My favourite type of kernel bug.

[StressedDev]

Nope - This bug was not caused by the language. Also, no one has ever claimed Rust is perfect. What people are claiming is it is a good alternative to C/C++ which prevents a lot of common errors like buffer overflows.

[toast0]

This example showed an introduced bug that was easy to debug, though.