Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
- 
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
 - 
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
 - 
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
 - 
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
 - 
No NSFW adult content
 - 
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
 
view the rest of the comments
Rust would not of fixed this
Rust isn't magical
Explain how a use after free could occur in safe rust, because to my knowledge, that is exactly the kind of thing rust does protect against.
Duh, by wrapping it in an
unsafeblock.Boom.
You never say "would not of". It's "would not have".
Rust would have prevented this, because the borrow checker prevents use-after-free vulnerabilites.
Do you know what a use-after-free bug is? Rust was literally designed to make this type of memory bug impossible.