News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by asveikau on Thursday May 28, 2020 @10:28AM (#23337680)
> Does this have a point in 2020 ? Good modern practice (c.f. Rust, etc) is to ship LTO'ed mostly-static binaries.

It sure sounds to me like modern practice as you've defined it is that when a component has a security vulnerability you're not going to patch it. It's going to be statically linked and running in a container image maybe created by somebody else and you'll have no idea it's there.

Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by MaulingMonkey on Thursday May 28, 2020 @05:06PM (#23342622)
Dynamic linking is no panacea here.

Yes, it theoretically lets you ship a patch version bump containing security fixes for the few languages with a stable ABI. But even ignoring the deluge of unpatched IOT garbage running seriously out of date kernels - nevermind userspaces - how do you ship that version bump of your library to your Windows users? Your OS X users? iOS? FreeBSD? RedHat? Android? Mint? Debian? PS4? Redox? Xbox One? Solaris? Switch? I've dynamically linked into PuTTY before - a good 'ole C codebase - and I still had to rebuild and redeploy myself when a security patch landed.

Meanwhile, an updated package on crates.io can change deps.rs badges, or trigger dependabot - optionally auto-merging the pull request if CI passes, or altering you to the build failure and need for manual action if that "patch" version broke things. Rustsec and cargo audit/geiger/crev are all hideously platform independent ways to catch problems. My patches to an unsound Rust crate can automatically land on your WASM-enabled website if you have things so configured.