Zig gives buffer overflow safety and null pointer safety but not use after free, double free, or stack pointer escape safety.
Zig also gives you memory exhaustion safety which rust does not.
Zig also gives you memory exhaustion safety which rust does not.
It can provide the latter two through the use of the `GeneralPurposeAllocator`, which tracks UAF and double free.
Stack pointer escape safety is being actively researched (there are a few tracking issues, see [1]). I'm personally interested in this, I've written a decent-ish amount of Zig for toy/personal projects, and anecdotally stack pointer escape is the only type of memory error that has bitten me more than once (though to be fair, one of these cases was calling into a C API, so even Rust wouldn't have helped).
More broadly, the ability to catch all forms of UB in Debug/safety builds is an accepted proposal [2], though whether or not it will be possible in practice is a different (and interesting!) question.
Is this somehow harder than, say, choosing not to use "unsafe" in Rust?
Maybe all that is missing is a linter to help enforce whatever memory-management policy you've decided on. That's not really needed for small, coherent teams, but would be important for using Zig in larger projects with multiple teams and/or disparate individual contributors. (Perhaps such a thing exists and I just don't know about it.)
You might also be able to use an arena allocator where free is a no-op. That has different tradeoffs, but is also safe for use-after-free and double-free.
As you say, stack escape is the main thing where Zig doesn't have a good memory-safety story yet (at least not that I've heard). I guess there are a few others that concern me when I see them on a list, though I haven't hit them in real life.
As an aside. I'm not certain I understand how double free is memory unsafe (in the sense of "causing vulnerabilities")
Perhaps there are some allocators where doing that hits UB. UB in memory allocation is probably always a memory safety issue. I would say if your code accepts any allocators where double-free could be UB then you've got a safety issue.
1. Some code allocates memory.
2. The code frees the memory, but keeps a stale reference to it around. It is marked as unused by the allocator.
3. Some other code allocates memory. Maybe it's reading the password file off of disk. The allocator has some unused memory lying around so it hands it out–but it turns out that this is actually just a reuse of the buffer from earlier. It is now marked as "in use" again by the allocator.
4. The code from earlier has a bug and frees the allocation again. This means that the allocation is now marked as "unused".
5. Another allocation request hands out this memory again. Maybe it's a buffer for user input? Well, it's been scribbled all over with other data now.
6. Someone asks to authenticate and the password checking code gets called. It has the password right here to check against…oh, wait, that memory got freed out from under it and overwritten with some attacker-controlled content!
I believe In practice the most common place where failable OOM is a big deal is in embedded systems programming
1. Calculate and allocate all your required memory immediately upon process startup (including memory from OS resources like sockets)
2. Call mlockall to prevent the pages from being swapped out
3. Write "-1000" to /proc/self/oom_score_adj to avoid the OOM killer
4. Use your preallocated memory as a pool for all further allocations
With the above approach, the application has full control over how to handle application-level OOMs (e.g. applying backpressure to connecting clients, or shrinking non-critical caches) once it is past the start-up stage.
Sure this more like DDOS mitigation, so it memory related safety, not memory safety.