The comment seemed to be making reference to rust's safety guarantees about undefined behaviour like use after free.
Linus' seems to have a completely different definition of "safey" that conflates allocation failures, indexing out of bounds, and division by zero with memory safety. Rust makes no claims about those problems, and the comment clearly refers to undefined behaviour. Obviously, those other problems are real problems, but just not ones that Rust claims to solve.
Edit: Reading the chain further along, it increasingly feels like Linus is aruging against a strawman.
You should read the email thread, as Linhas explains in clear terms.
Take for instance Linus's insightful followup post: