Their "Appendix: Memory Safe Languages" lists: C#, Go, Java, Python, Rust & Swift
[flagged]
The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
11–20 of 427 posts
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#12Their "Appendix: Memory Safe Languages" lists: C#, Go, Java, Python, Rust & Swift
Why is Python listed there and not other languages like Ruby, Javascript or Perl?
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#13Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#14At least my usecase has C completely disconnected from the internet. I have no idea how this is going to work at the OS level.
Crossing an air gap hasn't stopped a determined attacker in the past:
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on early days of Rust in the Linux kernel, the segmentation of safe and unsafe code can significantly reduce the surface area within a kernel.
I mean it's obvious why it works. The less code that has to be heavily scrutinized for memory issues, the more the few people that can scrutinize such code can focus on the parts that still need that level of scrutiny.
That was the most brilliant part of Rust lang design, when I thought about it.
There will always need to be unsafe ops in highest performance, low level coding.
But in the vast majority of use cases, there only need to be a few.
So huge security win being able to isolate those vs "somewhere in the entire codebase."
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#16At least my usecase has C completely disconnected from the internet. I have no idea how this is going to work at the OS level.
Based on early days of Rust in the Linux kernel, the segmentation of safe and unsafe code can significantly reduce the surface area within a kernel.
What's the uptake of Rust as far as Linux kernel dev goes? Is it being positively welcomed and seeing a rise in usage or is it still at PoC stage? Any ongoing rewrites of important subsystems?
Re: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps
#17[flagged]