As currently written, when a logic error occurs in a collection's trait
parameters, this allows *completely arbitrary* misbehavior, so long as
it does not cause undefined behavior in std. However, because the extent
of misbehavior is not specified, it is allowed for *any* code in std to
start misbehaving in arbitrary ways which are not formally UB; consider
the theoretical example of a global which gets set on an observed logic
error. Because the misbehavior is only bound by not resulting in UB from
safe APIs and the crate-level encapsulation boundary of all of std, this
makes writing user unsafe code that utilizes std theoretically
impossible, as it now relies on undocumented QOI that unrelated parts of
std cannot be caused to misbehave by a misuse of std::collections APIs.
In practice, this is a nonconcern, because std has reasonable QOI and an
implementation that takes advantage of this freedom is essentially a
malicious implementation and only compliant by the most langauage-lawyer
reading of the documentation.
To close this hole, we just add a small clause to the existing logic
error paragraph that ensures that any misbehavior is limited to the
collection which observed the logic error, making it more plausible to
prove the soundness of user unsafe code.
This is not meant to be formal; a formal refinement would likely need to
mention that values derived from the collection can also misbehave after a
logic error is observed, as well as define what it means to "observe" a
logic error in the first place. This fix errs on the side of informality
in order to close the hole without complicating a normal reading which
can assume a reasonable nonmalicious QOI.
See also [discussion on IRLO][1].
[1]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/using-std-collections-and-unsafe-anything-can-happen/16640
67aca498c6