Re:Google assigns a CVE for libwebp and gives it a 10.0 score
by eqvinox on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @06:13PM
(#37666476)
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 (kernelâ‹„userspace) API.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google assigns a CVE for libwebp and gives it a 10.0 score
by chlorion on Tuesday September 26, 2023 @07:08PM
(#37667104)
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.
Re:Google assigns a CVE for libwebp and gives it a 10.0 score
by pjmlp on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @03:43AM
(#37671413)
Time to make the point that not even C authors were able to change WG14 mind on the necessity of having fat pointers.
Re:Google assigns a CVE for libwebp and gives it a 10.0 score
by winter_blue on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @10:57AM
(#37675570)
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...