Getting Past C - Hackdot

Re:Getting Past C by Manishearth on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @09:02PM (#13315082)

While I now mostly agree with you that there is more unsafe code than there should be, I still maintain that the frequency of unsafe in a deptree is usually still small enough to be practically auditable, ignoring FFI. It could/should be much less, but it's not too bad. I've done such audits a few times and it's not been too hard and taken very little time.

Auditing FFI is a whole other challenge, however :(

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Getting Past C by pjmlp on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:04AM (#13316532)

> I still maintain that the frequency of unsafe in a deptree is usually still small enough to be practically auditable

Not in binary libraries, hence why it is important to have a culture to only use unsafe if it really must be used.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Getting Past C by Manishearth on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:24PM (#13321735)

Well, yeah, but you don't really download Rust binary libraries yet :)

You do have C libraries which you access through FFI. This is inevitably unsafe. We should be auditing more there. Though IMO it's still manageable, for most crates.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Getting Past C by staticassertion on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @09:51PM (#13315289)

Hmmmm. Note to self - actually try to audit a reasonably sized project's unsafe code to see how reasonable it is.

[ Parent | on HN ]