{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiau2l5jnwhn4jgmdjxusozh6hppugplojinigxo7ygn642lsx2lsm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mpswfxzzm2g2"
  },
  "path": "/t/language-vision-regarding-safety-guarantees/24418?page=3#post_55",
  "publishedAt": "2026-07-04T09:23:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "tags": [
    "current convention"
  ],
  "textContent": "ia0:\n\n> But the current convention says that `bar` is not at fault because unsafe code can rely on correctness of its dependencies\n\nThis is incorrect. There is no convention that says that it's always OK to rely on the correctness of the dependencies for soundness purposes. You shouldn't do that if the dependency is not trustworthy, untested, etc. It is your responsibility if you have a soundness bug because you used a buggy dependency.\n\nYou seem to be misinterpreting the word \"can\" which is somewhat ambiguous. Crate author _may_ rely on anything they want (including for soundness purposes), but they _are_ responsible for making that judgement accurately.\n\nFor example, you _may_ use Fermat's Last Theorem in your `Safety` proof. Andrew Wiles doesn't have to declare whether his proof can be used for safety of Rust programs. It is your responsibility to judge whether a proof of a math theorem is solid enough to trust it for soundness of your code.\n\nIf you use a shady math theorem that somebody published on the internet, and that theorem turns out to be wrong, and your code unsound as a result, it _is_ your fault.\n\nSame thing for deciding whether to trust dependencies for soundness purposes. There is no convention that absolves you from that responsibility.",
  "title": "Language vision regarding safety guarantees"
}