[azakai]

> By my understanding, Rust's ownership model would prevent concurrent access to the socket buffer garbage collector data structures without proper synchronization

Possibly. But the first question is whether the person writing this in Rust would have used unsafe. Without knowing more details here, it's hard for me to guess.

> other memory safe languages don't make guarantees about concurrent accesses at all - at least not Java

Well, Java does have synchronized methods. Those lock the entire class. You can imagine writing a "manager" class that encapsulates all the GC data structures here, and that would have made this perfectly safe in Java using existing language features.

Of course, that would have been slower - so, again, it is tempting to use unsafe approaches, even in a memory-safe language like Java, but then you do risk bugs like this.

But of course I do agree that Rust, even with some amount of unsafe, would be a far safer language than C!

[tsimionescu]

The difference though would still be that, if they don't use unsafe or proper synchronization in Rust, their code won't compile. In Java, their code will compile just the same whether they use `synchronized` or not.

Of course the Rust compiler can't force you to write correct synchronization, but it can at least prevent you from forgetting about synchronization entirely.