yourdetect

5 ms·

1.
by yourdetect 9mo ago
> Of course, this bug was in an `unsafe` block, which is exactly what you would expect given Rust's promises. The fix was outside of any Rust unsafe blocks. Which confused a lot of Rust developers on Reddit and elsewhere. Since fans
2.
by yourdetect 9mo ago
I think defining terminology here might help. An attempt: Language-UB (L-UB): UB according to the guarantees of the language. Project-compiler-UB (PC-UB): The project picks compilers and compiler settings to create a stronger set of guarant
3.
by yourdetect 9mo ago
I am very wary of going that route. If there is undefined behavior, the compiler is in principle allowed to do anything and everything, unless it promises something beyond what the language promises. One could then argue that a specific ver
4.
by yourdetect 9mo ago
> Should we remove C or Your post is curious, for the post I quoted basically argued for just that eventuality for all new code. Even as the new language introduces undefined behavior vulnerabilities. The promises as stated previously, a
5.
by yourdetect 9mo ago
From the comment section: > To me the more salient questions are how long before (a) we get Rust in a core subsystem (thus making Rust truly _required_ instead of "optional unless you have hardware foo"), and (b) requiring Rust
6.
by yourdetect 9mo ago
Does this contain unsafe? Even the Linux kernel's Rust code have memory safety bugs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46309536
7.
by yourdetect 9mo ago
It's UB, it is not memory safe, so in theory, and often also in practice with this specific kind of bug, absolutely anything could happen, including code execution. Greg Kroah-Hartman's comment is both wrong and perplexing.