People arguing that "you can not ever write safe C" might also come to the conclusion that one "unsafe" somewhere in your Rust code potentially means that the whole code base is immediately at the same level of implicit memory safety as C.
No, the forced use of "unsafe" in Rust for some kinds of safety mechanisms to be disabled makes the code to audit easier to locate and reason about.
IF the code in the "unsafe" block does not actually isolate the "unsafe"-ness THEN conclusions can be drawn about the rest of the code.
Contrast that to C where the code introducing unsafeness, UB and unsoundness could be basically anywhere instead of a convenient "rg/grep unsafe" away.
I was just pointing out that, in the case of the particularly diligent OP, he is probably getting an equivalent level of safety - for much more effort though.
Even with just static analysis and some sane coding conventions you can get C on the same safety level of Rust. I see Rust as a huge waste of everybody's time and resources and far too opinionated in many regards.
Either way, x86_64 assembly code is a high level language that gets interpreted by the CPU at runtime, so not sure how relevant it is to anything low level anymore.