Chrome is in an exceptionally hard place because of its JIT. Your language cannot tell you if it's safe for your JIT to omit a bounds check.

That post describes two vulnerabilities: one is in the JIT, but the other one is in regular old C++ code. More generally, JIT bugs are a relatively small minority of browser vulnerabilities. More often you see issues like use-after-free in C++ code that interacts with JS, such as implementations of DOM interfaces, but the issues are not directly JIT related and would be avoided in a fully memory-safe language.

Chrome, like Firefox, is not an example of modern C++ code. Google's and Mozilla's coding standards enforce a late-'90s style. It is astonishing they get it to work at all.

In this case, I mean a subsystem that has been in production since 2006 and has been processing hundreds of thousands of messages a day. I don't claim that it's perfect or bug-free, but if it had significant memory errors I'd have heard about it. I designed and implemented it to use patterns like RAII to manage memory, and it's worked quite well.

That is why use tools like valgrind to verify that you got it right.

When I worked on a mobile C++ project at Google, we went exceptionally out of our way to avoid memory issues.

We ran under valgrind and multiple sanitizers (and continuously ran those with high coverage unit and integration tests). We ran fuzzers. We had strictly enforced style guides.

We still shipped multiple use after frees and ub-tripping behavior. I also saw multiple issues in other major libraries that we were building from source so it can't be pointed at as just incompetency on my team.

Basically, it might be possible but I think it's exceptionally more difficult to write memory safe C++ than this thread is making it sound.

Writing memory safe programs in C++ is possible. Most coding styles and some problem domains don't lend themselves to it naturally, though. In my experience, restricted subsets used for embedded software vastly reduce the risk of introducing errors and make actual errors easier to spot and fix.

> Writing memory safe programs in C++ is possible.

Everything "is possible" in the sense that in theory you can do it. But if time and time again people fail to do it. Even people who invest almost heroic levels of effort (see above: valgrind, multiple sanitizers, and so on) you get to the point where you have to accept that what is possible in theory doesn't work in practice.

I have seen it done in practice, on rather large systems. But it requires actual, slow software engineering instead of the freestyle coding processes that are used in most places.

My main rule is "no naked new," meaning that the only place the new operator is allowed is in a constructor, and the only place delete is allowed is in a destructor (unless there's some very special circumstance). This style lends itself to RAII. The other rule is to use the standard library containers unless there's a very good reason not to do so. That seems to cover most of the really basic errors.

Yes, I know how you code are obliged to code at Google. It is astonishing that anything works.

The "strictly enforced style guides" strictly enforce '90s coding habits.

Together with a test-suite that covers the exponential number of paths through your code...

Changing programming language neither reduces the need for test coverage nor does it magically increase coverage.

A type system changes the need for test coverage because it eliminates whole classes of bugs statically that would need an infinite amount of tests to eliminate dynamically.

That leaves an infinite amount logic bugs to be tested for. Types cannot fix interface misuse at integration and system level. So no, this does not reduce the need for testing.

Whether they reduce the need for testing overall is arguable. But what matters in this discussion is that types can guarantee memory safety, meaning that the cases that you forgot to test – and there will always be such cases, no matter how careful you are (just look at SQLite) – are less likely to be exploitable.

Types can only provide limited memory safety. There is a real need to deal with data structures that are so dynamic as to be essentially untyped. Granted, this usually happens in driver code for particularly interesting hardware, but it happens. Also, I have not yet seen a type system that is both memory safe and does not prohibit certain optimizations.