61–70 of 73 posts
Could you use this to make sure users uploading files to your website are correct (i.e only jpegs and valid image data)? But in a fast and safe way, or is this overkill?
Could you use this to make sure users uploading files to your website are correct (i.e only jpegs and valid image data)? But in a fast and safe way, or is this overkill?
Could you use this to make sure users uploading files to your website are correct (i.e only jpegs and valid image data)? But in a fast and safe way, or is this overkill?
Wuffs is great. I use it in Substrata ( https://substrata.info/ ) for loading PNGs. It is both faster and safer than LibPNG. It's something around 2x faster than LibPNG in my tests (depending on the PNG file), see timings here: https://github.com/google/wuffs/issues/13#issuecomment-17325... So generally Wuffs is great and you should use it to decode your PNGs. There are some downsides: not all of the obscure bit dept…
The "mango" lib [1] claims to be even faster for PNGs. Actively maintained but doesn't have as much buzz, I think the devs haven't advertised it as much on places like this. Also, it has the funniest testimonials. 1: https://github.com/t0rakka/mango
This is one of my favorite attempts at better programming language safety, because it compiles down to C that can then be shipped like normal C, so you don't get the ecosystem friction like with ex. Rust.
C has a lot of problems as a compilation target as well, from surprising UB (e.g. signed integer overflow) to debugging problems (e.g. #line is woefully inadequate compared to the ability to emit DWARF DIEs) to the inconvenience of setting up a toolchain for end users. To its credit, Wuffs is one of the better projects that compiles to C, because it targets a very restricted domain. But, in general, don't write progr…
This is one of my favorite attempts at better programming language safety, because it compiles down to C that can then be shipped like normal C, so you don't get the ecosystem friction like with ex. Rust.
C has a lot of problems as a compilation target as well, from surprising UB (e.g. signed integer overflow) to debugging problems (e.g. #line is woefully inadequate compared to the ability to emit DWARF DIEs) to the inconvenience of setting up a toolchain for end users. To its credit, Wuffs is one of the better projects that compiles to C, because it targets a very restricted domain. But, in general, don't write progr…
For debugging i believe you can generate your own source maps and use gdb as a backend to talk with your custom debugger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are PDF readers that do not support the scripting format extensions. Note this does not prevent unscrupulous companies abusing dominant market positions to voluntarily embed machine and serial hash watermarks. To be clear: formats like pdf, ps, webp, svg, and tiff are so badly implemented in some ecosystems... they can't _ever_ be assumed safe input formats. Thus, at some point people need to spin up an actual…
WUFFS is provably safe - that's the whole schtick. If a WUFFS kernel exists, you can assume it is safe. If it's not proven safe, it doesn't compile. The reason everyone doesn't program in WUFFS is that you have to write a proof that your kernel is safe, which takes a very very very long time.
Can Wuffs provide stronger safety guarantees than techniques like WasmBoxC? My understanding is that compiling unsafe C to WASM and back would also guarantee safety with respect to buffer overflows, integer arithmetic overflows and null pointer dereferences. It’s nice not annotating code to explicitly prove invariants to the compiler like you would in say Wuffs or Rust, but I suppose that’s what limits performance.
But the tradeoff is that you need to rewrite your code for Wuffs, while WasmBoxC can sandbox anything that compiles to wasm and prevent it from corrupting the outside, including existing code in C, C++, Zig, unsafe Rust, etc. etc.
Please, let the end brackets should be enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the formal verification story for WUFFS?
For WUFFS the language, or for WUFFS the library, or for the WUFFS tooling today? The clever idea is to have you the programmer in effect write a proof that your code has the desired semantic properties as part of the programming activity and so then the WUFFS transpiler is merely checking that the proof is correct. This leverages your understanding of what you were trying to do.