nomicon VS unsafe-code-guidelines

it’s even written by the same person that wrote the Nomicon (the guide to the dark arts of unsafe)

If you want to dive deeper you can always have other options but now there are concrete cases, if you want to do low level thing https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/ while if you want multi thread/concurrency stuff https://marabos.nl/atomics/ . There are many many books so you will have to point yourself to what you want

Nonononono. SeqCst is the most error prone memory order: https://github.com/rust-lang/nomicon/issues/166

Hope this helps. For more details, see the Rustonomicon. I referenced the subtyping chapter here extensively.

Nice video! Glad I could help out. This stuff is hard, and I'm still learning a lot about it myself even years later. The Rustonomicon is a great read if you haven't already.

Have you got a moment to read through the good book , after reading through this perhaps try the Rustonomicon.

That is not what UB means. Undefined Behaviour is behaviour that the compiler is allowed to assume will never happen, and which can consequently cause miscompilations due to optimisation passes gone wrong if it does in fact occur in the source code.

It's true that Rust does not have a written specification that clearly delineates what is and isn't UB in a single place. But:

1. UB is impossible in safe code (modulo bugs in unsafe code)

2. There are resources such as the Rustinomicon (https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/) that provide a detailed guide on what is and isn't allowed in unsafe code.

In practice, it's much easier to avoid UB in Rust than it is in C++.

However, this is a wide topic out of scope for a Reddit comment, so maybe just read the Rustonomicon. It explains everything about data handling in Rust.

The ownership model & borrow checker makes rust a bit of an awkward language in which to write complex data structures like trees and graphs. It can be done - since you can always use raw pointers & unsafe code when you absolutely need to to treat rust like C. But the language fights you, and the community can get a bit moralistic about this sort of thing. The rust nomicon is a fantastic resource for learning the limits of the borrow checker, and where and how to use unsafe code correctly. You will need unsafe less than you think you will, but sometimes you will have no choice.

Useful context on the Rust side is this issue [1]. It sounds like some of the author's concerns are addressed already.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/4...

Is this captured by one of the known soundness conflicts? If not then should consider adding it to the list.

There are some competing proposals for different memory models. Stacked borrows is the current proposal, but there are more work in the approproate WG.

Thank you /u/RalfJung for bringing formal methods to Rust, both through models like Stacked Borrows, by developing miri, and by working on unsafe-code-guidelines which aims to specify exactly what is and isn't allowed in unsafe code (surprisingly, it's an open question as 2023!)

You could imagine some way to make this safe for example automatically convert &'short &'long mut T to &'short &'short T, but it's non-trivial to prove they are safe at all, not to mention ensuring this is correctly implemented in the compiler. If you're interested there's also a discussion on whether the opposite (& & T to & &mut T) is sound here.

Agreed! MIRI is so good, it still feels like magic to me. It also comforts me that the Rust team takes improving unsafe semantics seriously, with the past Unsafe Code Guidelines WG and today's operational semantics team (t-opsem).

I think there are some aspects of this rule that are still undecided. See for example:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/8...

- https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2732

C is much better specified than unsafe Rust. Some things are just not worked out yet in Rust. This may sometimes even bite very experienced devs, such as this issue with Box's aliasing semantics, which tripped up the author of left-right.