gw2

8 ms·

1.
by gw2 1y ago
> even Rust isn't really memory-safe. Yeah, and this points at a deeper issue: the concept of a language being either (binary) memory safe or not does not really make sense. Memory safety is a spectrum and most GC'd languages a
2.
by gw2 1y ago
Questions to anyone using Crystal in production: * How is the GC latency, considering that Crystal uses the Boehm GC? * Have you encountered any problems in long running programs due to the conservative nature of Boehm?
3.
Multi-threading is always the wrong design (2023)(unetworkingab.medium.com)
33 points by gw2 1y ago|52 comments
4.
by gw2 1y ago
Have a look at this repo: https://github.com/trailofbits/clang-cfi-showcase
5.
by gw2 1y ago
First of all, thanks for your response. > This rarely helps. Most of the nice-to-exploit bugs were in older codes, which weren't using STL containers. While I agree with this, is not modifying those code to use STL containers much c
6.
by gw2 1y ago
> something like half of the 70% would be prevented Sure, but the other half are use-after-frees and those would not be exploitable anyway because of CFI and shadow stacks.
7.
by gw2 1y ago
A question to security experts reading this thread: What is your opinion on deploying C++ codebases with mitigations like CFI and bounds checking? Let's say I have a large C++ codebase which I am unwilling to rewrite in Rust. But I: *
8.
by gw2 1y ago
> Zig is essentially a skin on a subset of C++, one that is in practice less safe than C++ Give it a rest please. Given your association with Rust, endlessly attacking competing languages is not a good look, regardless of whether your po
9.
The Jakt Programming Language(github.com)
108 points by gw2 1y ago|48 comments
10.
by gw2 2y ago
I find VS Code to be unmanageable for anything beyond a medium sized project. Maybe the LSPs I use are to be blamed, but I find nvim less problematic in this regard.
11.
by gw2 2y ago
If the application is free (with no strings attached), I would not really complain. But the main offenders are apps by large companies that have revenues in billions. The problem is that most of the userbase do not complain.
12.
by gw2 2y ago
Thanks for your reply. > Overwriting function pointers gives code execution under shadow stacks As you are probably aware, there are two kinds of CFI - forward-edge and backward-edge. Forward-edge CFI prevents tampered function pointers,
13.
by gw2 2y ago
> C# is specifically designed for enterprise-style OOP Then why would they add Span<T>, SIMD types and overhaul ref types in the first place?
14.
by gw2 2y ago
Sure. Here are some resources: * Span<T>: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2018... * C# now has a limited borrow checker-like mechanism to safely handle local references: https:&
15.
by gw2 2y ago
C#. While a popular language, it is criminally overlooked for high-performance programming. Obviously, you can't use it for embedded or kernel development. For other use cases though, it can almost reach the performance of C/C++&#
16.
by gw2 2y ago
I may be wrong, but that issue is specific to PA. Shadow stacks can't be tampered with. Smartphones probably went with PA because shadow stacks require more memory. My use case specifically is targeting desktop/server systems with
17.
by gw2 2y ago
D's "Better C"[1] mode looks like what you describe. Has syntax similar to C with a real module system, metaprogramming, slice types etc., 1 - https://dlang.org/spec/betterc.html
18.
by gw2 2y ago
I am not interested in adhering to some arbitrary purity standard (like "memory safety" in this case). Almost always, purity ideologies are both irrational and harmful. What I am actually interested is to prevent real problems lik
19.
by gw2 2y ago
> There are going to be false positives Of course, but compare it with rewriting it to a completely different language.
20.
by gw2 2y ago
With due respect, the blog you have linked looks like the average Rust marketing material. It does absolutely nothing to address my concerns. I did a `Ctrl-F` and found zero hits of any of the following terms: * CFI * isoheaps or type-sta
21.
by gw2 2y ago
> but you still need a human to fix it. The same thing can be said about a Rust vector OOB panic or any other bug in any safe language. Bugs happen which is why programmers are employed in the first place!
22.
by gw2 2y ago
What is your opinion on deploying C++ codebases with mitigations like CFI and bounds checking? Let us say I have a large C++ codebase which I am unwilling to rewrite in Rust. But I: * Enable STL bounds checking using appropriate flags (like
23.
by gw2 2y ago
> IME you can't reliably extract the intent from the C code, much less the binary, so you can't really fix these bugs without a human rewriting the source. I am pretty sure that the parent is talking about hardware memory safet