Because the Rust used in the kernel is unsafe. All these people downvoting me or talking about 2000 year old books choosing to be maliciously ignorant, which is fine, I guess.
You have to be rage baiting to make an argument this bad.
First, no, it’s not all unsafe, it’s not even 50% unsafe.
Second, even 50% unsafe is an upgrade from 100% unsafe.
The problem is that the R4L project is raising a lot of questions about how interfaces are handled by some Linux maintainers, and there’s definitely a difference in criteria when it comes to soundness bugs.
I fall on the side that just because nobody has stepped on it on years isn’t a good excuse to keep landmines in the code, but clearly a lot of people in the kernel think differently.
By your logic, the entire Rust language and ecosystem would be considered unsafe. Even the Rust standard library is full of unsafe blocks and functions. But people don't consider it so, because Rust isn't about avoiding unsafe code. It's about containing unsafe code and presenting a safe wrapper by enforcing the invariants. This philosophy would have been abundantly clear if you cared to look at the patch [1] at the center of this controversy. Perhaps you should verify the validity and harmlessness of your own claims before accusing others.
