[fulafel]

Interesting view that memory leaks aren't correctness problems. But I would require more convincing to agree.

It's true that memory leaks can be small enough that they don't become problems in the end-to-end behaviour of the system in regular use. But a lot of bugs are like that. For example many memory safety bugs.

[masklinn]

> Interesting view that memory leaks aren't correctness problems.

The view of rust is rather that they’re not safety problems.

Whether they’re correctness problems is more complicated: in general they are, but there are lots of cases where they’re not, like short-running processes (once the process terminated it’s memory is reclaimed so freeing it is unnecessary overhead), or FFI (you’re moving memory out of your purview, you can’t know whether it’ll be disposed of anymore).

[fulafel]

Safety and security as terms have an interesting relationship especially in Rust context - traditionally in engineering safety means defending against accidents and security means defending against malicious attackers, but "safety" in the term "memory safety" commonly implies security as well. Language is hard...

Considing whether memory leaks are a security problem brings us to the traditional CIA definition of security - the A (availability) is at risk from memory leaks.

[eloff]

Sorry, I should have said they’re not safety problems. The commenters below got it right.

Memory safety bugs are very different, because whether or not they affect the functioning of your software, they’re a ticking time bombs that could compromise your system. A memory leak will at worst crash your software.