trophy-case VS nomicon

You could check cargo-fuzz trophy case, which is a list of issues that have been found via fuzzing.

I've added it to the trophy case.

That said, what's present in what quantities under what circumstances in the Rust fuzzing trophy case does a pretty good job of illustrating how effective the Rust compiler is at ruling out entire classes of bugs.

The same fuzzing techniques applied to Rust yielded a lot of bugs as well. But in Rust's case only 7 out of 340 fuzzer-discovered bugs, or 2%, were memory corruption issues. Naturally, all of the memory corruption bugs were in unsafe code.

https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case has like 70 of my issues in it, including the nine minidump bugs

If you have found any bugs with this tool, perhaps add them to the Rust fuzz trophy case?

Source: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case (over 40 of those are just from me).

But to bring some data, check out the fuzz trophy case. It shows that failures in Rust are most often assertions/panics (equivalent to C++ exception) with memory corruption being relatively rare (it's not never—Rust isn't promising magic—but it's a significant change).

You need to read the list more carefully.

• The list is not for Rust itself, but every program every written in Rust. By itself it doesn't mean much, unless you compare prevalence of issues among Rust programs to prevalence of issues among C programs. For some context, see how memory unsafety is rare compared to assertions and uncaught exceptions: https://github.com/rust-fuzz/trophy-case

• Many of the memory-unsafety issues are on the C FFI boundary, which is unsafe due to C lacking expressiveness about memory ownership of its APIs (i.e. it shows how dangerous is to program where you don't have the Rust borrow checker checking your code).

• Many bugs about missing Send/Sync or evil trait implementations are about type-system loopholes that prevented compiler from catching code that was already buggy. C doesn't have these guarantees in the first place, so lack of them is not a CVE for C, but just how C is designed.

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.