Based on the raw number of assorted crates, which has no bearing on kernel code. The more relevant question is, can a performant, cross-architecture, kernel ring-buffer be written in safe Rust?
It’s always a way lower number than folks assume. Even in spaces that have higher than average usage.
The entirety of safe Rust is built upon unsafe Rust that's abstracted like this. The fact that you sometimes need unsafe isn't a mark against Rust, but literally the entire premise of the language and the exact problem it's designed to solve.
This is something a lot of people misunderstand about unsafe rust. The safe / unsafe distinction isn't at the crate level. You don't say "this entire module opts out of safety checks". Unsafe is a granular thing. The unsafe keyword doesn't turn off the borrow checker. It just lets you dereference pointers (and do a few other tricks).
Systems code written in rust often has a few unsafe functions which interact with the actual hardware. But all the high level logic - which is usually most of the code by volume - can be written using safe, higher level abstractions.
"Can all of io_uring be written in safe rust?" - probably not, no. But could you write the vast majority of io_uring in safe rust? Almost certainly. This bug is a great example. In this case, the problematic function was this one:
static void io_zcrx_return_niov_freelist(struct net_iov *niov)
{
struct io_zcrx_area *area = io_zcrx_iov_to_area(niov);
spin_lock_bh(&area->freelist_lock);
area->freelist[area->free_count++] = net_iov_idx(niov);
spin_unlock_bh(&area->freelist_lock);
}