Only goes to show that C is a broken language and unfit for its purpose in today's day and age

For people downvoting, could you please explain which part of this statement you agree or disagree with?

C is syntactic sugar around assembly. Saying C is outdated is like saying assembly is outdated. At that point, just admit you're not interested in computers

I want to create software that doesn’t harm users. That doesn’t at all imply that I’m not interested in computers. In fact guaranteeing safety for users shows a profound interest in computers.

But assembly _is_ outdated, at least for the purpose of authoring large community software projects.

> C is syntactic sugar around assembly.

The C abstract machine, and the undefined behavior shenanigans compilers are pulling off says otherwise.

> C is syntactic sugar around assembly

It isn't

As an example, see how C 'int', 'short', 'long' or whatever becomes actual different types

> just admit you're not interested in computers

I have the popcorn ready already for when the next C "hotshot" shoots himself in the foot yet again because he thinks a chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun

> chainsaw without an emergency brake is just more fun

Fun and fast!

> C is syntactic sugar around assembly.

Even if this is true (and I don't believe it is), it's not useful.

All programming languages are syntactic sugar around processor instructions

The design of io_uring has nothing to do with the language the Linux kernel is implemented in. And safer languages really can't provide guarantees when the issue at hand is designing a shared memory cross-executable (kernel⋄userspace) API.

Just having first class slice types, where your pointer is paired with a length, which allows for doing bounds checking automatically is a huge upgrade over C, even if it doesn't solve every other problem.

Security exploits from out of bounds access should not be happening today, bounds checking is a solved problem, and has been solved for decades.

Time to make the point that not even C authors were able to change WG14 mind on the necessity of having fat pointers.

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/vararray.pdf

That's a pretty interesting paper. Thanks for sharing it. I wonder why Dennis Ritchie, with the weight his name carries, wasn't able to push it into mainstream implementation...

Because once a language is managed by ISO, that doesn't matter, the author gets one vote like everyone else.

So this shows how the majority of WG14 members see security in C.

Kind of crazy we're still using monolithic kernels in 2023. Nothing about `io_uring` needs to happen with elevated privileges.

I would take a large—say, 2-5x—performance hit just to escape these kinds of vulnerabilities.

but isn't the whole point of io_uring that it's more performant?

A 2-5× performance hit is also a 2-5× CO₂ hit, and I wouldn't be willing to let myself or other people take that hit. We're throwing enough heat into the atmosphere already to make cats dance on our portable supercomputers as is.