[Coding Rule]: assure visibility of unsafe keyword in unsafe code by rcseacord · Pull Request #358 · Safety-Critical-Rust-Consortium/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines

rcseacord · 2026-01-02T21:18:08Z

netlify · 2026-01-02T21:18:14Z

✅ Deploy Preview for scrc-coding-guidelines ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`fe6c44f`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/scrc-coding-guidelines/deploys/697fe58b63e6dc0008c5b684
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-358--scrc-coding-guidelines.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

Updated guideline to ensure visibility of unsafe tokens in unsafe code, reflecting changes in Rust Edition 2024. Added rationale and examples to clarify requirements.

Update guideline to ensure visibility of 'unsafe' keyword in unsafe code, reflecting changes in Rust Edition 2024.

Clarify issues with using #[export_name] and #[link_section] attributes without unsafe wrappers in Rust 2024.

Removed visibility section and updated examples for compliance with Rust Edition 2024. Clarified unsafe usage in function declarations and attributes.

Removed exceptions section and added safety notes for unsafe attributes.

github-actions · 2026-02-10T23:07:41Z

👋 Hey @darkwisebear! You've been assigned to review this coding guideline PR.

Your Role as Reviewer

As outlined in our contribution guide, please:

Begin your review within 14 days
Provide constructive feedback on the guideline content, examples, and formatting
Iterate with @rcseacord - they may update the PR based on your feedback
When the guideline is ready, approve and add to the merge queue

Review Checklist

Guideline title is clear and follows conventions
Amplification section expands on the title appropriately
Rationale explains the "why" effectively
Non-compliant example(s) clearly show the problem
Compliant example(s) clearly show the solution
Code examples compile (check the CI results)
FLS paragraph ID is correct

Bot Commands

If you need to pass this review:

@guidelines-bot /pass [reason] - Pass just this PR to the next reviewer
@guidelines-bot /away YYYY-MM-DD [reason] - Step away from the queue until a date
@guidelines-bot /release [@username] [reason] - Release assignment (yours or someone else's with triage+ permission)

To assign someone else:

@guidelines-bot /r? @username - Assign a specific reviewer
@guidelines-bot /r? producers - Request the next reviewer from the queue

Other commands:

@guidelines-bot /claim - Claim this review for yourself
@guidelines-bot /label +label-name - Add a label
@guidelines-bot /label -label-name - Remove a label
@guidelines-bot /queue - Show reviewer queue
@guidelines-bot /commands - Show all available commands

darkwisebear

Looks good, I'd be in favor of merging, the comments are merely nits and minor things. I can't click the stuff in the checklist, consider them clicked.

darkwisebear · 2026-02-12T20:08:56Z

+
+          unsafe extern "C" {
+              // Here the assumption is that malloc is the one defined by C's stdlib.h
+              // and that size_of::<usize>() == size_of::<size_t>()


May be a bit picky, but this should probably be asserted on, as in const { assert!(std::mem::size_of::<usize>() == std::mem::size_of::<libc::size_t>()); } or just replace usize with libc::size_t to not contradict to #225.

darkwisebear · 2026-02-12T20:14:11Z

+   :id: gui_ZDLZzjeOwLSU
+   :category: required
+   :status: draft
+   :release: 1.85-latest


Afaiu this rule is only meaningful for edition <2024. If this is correct, should we add this to the metadata in this section? Would we need a new metdata field for this?

darkwisebear · 2026-02-12T20:16:13Z

+   * **Static Analysis Tools**:
+
+     * ``cargo-geiger`` - Counts and reports unsafe code usage
+     * ``cargo-audit`` - Checks for known vulnerabilities in dependencies
+     * Custom Clippy lints for project-specific requirements


While this part is informative, it's not helping enforcing the rule. I think this should be moved from this section.

github-actions · 2026-02-12T20:19:57Z

✅ Rectified PR #358: latest review by @darkwisebear is COMMENTED; refreshed reviewer activity.

plaindocs

Approving on behalf of @darkwisebear to get this merged.

github-actions · 2026-02-18T15:22:24Z

✅ Rectified PR #358: latest review by @darkwisebear is COMMENTED; refreshed reviewer activity.

plaindocs · 2026-02-18T15:49:28Z

@darkwisebear please open an issue with the remaining nits 🙇‍♂️

rcseacord mentioned this pull request Jan 2, 2026

[Coding Guideline]: Assure visibility of unsafe tokens in unsafe code #252

Open

rcseacord changed the title ~~[Coding Rule]: assure visibility of unsafe tokens in unsafe code~~ [Coding Rule]: assure visibility of unsafe keyword in unsafe code Jan 4, 2026

rcseacord and others added 8 commits February 2, 2026 07:04

Add guideline: assure visibility of unsafe tokens in unsafe code

cc225e1

Revise guideline for unsafe token visibility

94ef378

Updated guideline to ensure visibility of unsafe tokens in unsafe code, reflecting changes in Rust Edition 2024. Added rationale and examples to clarify requirements.

Revise guideline for 'unsafe' keyword visibility

e860707

Update guideline to ensure visibility of 'unsafe' keyword in unsafe code, reflecting changes in Rust Edition 2024.

Fix formatting and update Rust examples in guidelines

afa1cf4

Update guidelines on unsafe attribute usage in Rust

7a9106b

Clarify issues with using #[export_name] and #[link_section] attributes without unsafe wrappers in Rust 2024.

Refactor guidelines for unsafe operations in Rust

eb5bdad

Removed visibility section and updated examples for compliance with Rust Edition 2024. Clarified unsafe usage in function declarations and attributes.

Update guidelines for unsafe attributes in Rust

a6703e8

Removed exceptions section and added safety notes for unsafe attributes.

fix: make unsafe attribute example 2024 compile-fail

e1044d5

PLeVasseur force-pushed the guideline/unsafetoken branch from d8d653b to e1044d5 Compare February 1, 2026 22:31

fix: convert unsafe keyword guideline to .rst

fe6c44f

felix91gr added the coding guideline An issue related to a suggestion for a coding guideline label Feb 10, 2026

github-project-automation Bot added this to [Safety Critical Rust Consortium Coding Guidelines] Work Items Feb 10, 2026

PLeVasseur mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2026

fix(reviewer-bot): mutation-intent routing and git-ref CAS state lock #405

Merged

Safety-Critical-Rust-Consortium deleted a comment from github-actions Bot Feb 10, 2026

felix91gr added coding guideline An issue related to a suggestion for a coding guideline and removed coding guideline An issue related to a suggestion for a coding guideline labels Feb 10, 2026

darkwisebear reviewed Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

plaindocs approved these changes Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

plaindocs added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 18, 2026

Merged via the queue into Safety-Critical-Rust-Consortium:main with commit 1c7d6bb Feb 18, 2026
17 checks passed

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Done in [Safety Critical Rust Consortium Coding Guidelines] Work Items Feb 18, 2026

PLeVasseur deleted the guideline/unsafetoken branch February 18, 2026 16:19

felix91gr added the chapter: unsafety label Feb 24, 2026

JoelMarcey added this to [Safety Critical Rust Consortium Coding Guidelines] Work Items Apr 13, 2026

JoelMarcey moved this to Done in [Safety Critical Rust Consortium Coding Guidelines] Work Items Apr 13, 2026

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

[Coding Rule]: assure visibility of unsafe keyword in unsafe code#358

[Coding Rule]: assure visibility of unsafe keyword in unsafe code#358
plaindocs merged 9 commits into
Safety-Critical-Rust-Consortium:mainfrom
rcseacord:guideline/unsafetoken

rcseacord commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

netlify Bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

darkwisebear left a comment

Uh oh!

darkwisebear Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

darkwisebear Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

darkwisebear Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

plaindocs left a comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

plaindocs commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

rcseacord commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

netlify Bot commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for scrc-coding-guidelines ready!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 10, 2026

Your Role as Reviewer

Review Checklist

Bot Commands

Uh oh!

darkwisebear left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

darkwisebear Feb 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

darkwisebear Feb 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

darkwisebear Feb 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

plaindocs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

plaindocs commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

netlify Bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading