> Coding it in Rust does not, in fact, guarantee it is correct.

Of course.

> Coding C++, you need only choose known-correct primitives to get the same level of assurance.

C++ does not even have the means to express "known-correct" primitives. The compiler will not tell you if you accidentally access a non-thread-safe type from another thread. It will not tell you if you accidentally resize a vector while having an outstanding reference to one of its elements. These are not "bad primitives" you can blame - getting this stuff right requires higher-level reasoning which the C++ compiler cannot do for you, and the Rust compiler can.

> is exactly as safe as Rust eBPF, but likely less annoying to code.

Personally I find C++ far more annoying to code. I mean header files... In 2022? Text based macros? No standardised way to manage dependencies?