[pcwalton]

Because you could just do the Rust equivalent of system("dd of=/proc/myprocess/mem ...") instead, so it would be security theater. Memory safety just isn't a part of the default Unix model.

Note the emphasis on "default" above; you can use the Linux sandboxing features such as seccomp-bpf to build a sandbox which is truly memory-safe, closing this hole. The OS is in charge of the features it exposes, and Rust can't do much about that.

Note also that the existence of totally_safe_transmute doesn't mean that Rust's memory safety features are pointless. Empirically, memory-safe programming languages result in far fewer memory safety vulnerabilities, because they make exploitation way harder.

[dullcrisp]

Okay but why doesn’t Rust set up an LLM to analyze all output of the process and if it determines that the process is trying to communicate to the outside world that it intends to do something memory unsafe it pani

[merlincorey]

Ah yes, predictive text based panics is what we need in our compilers...

The LLM hype has really jumped the shark.