undefined | Better HN

0 pointswoodruffw11mo ago0 comments

Yep. I wanted to start from the high-level point of "safe doesn't mean doesn't crash," but you're right that the technique itself is unsound.

0 comments

pclmulqdq11mo ago

In rust terminology, "safe" actually implies more frequent crashes on untrusted inputs.

mirashii11mo ago

No, "safe" implies that there's no undefined behavior across all inputs. Whether that's a crash or not is still up to the implementer of the code in question, same as any other language. It is your choice whether to use interfaces that crash or do not crash, that is not forced upon you by the language.

woodruffwOP11mo ago

Why do you think this? The closest thing in “common” Rust would be unwraps/panics, but these are (1) not crashes per se, and (2) probably not more common than they would be in an equivalent C codebase.

pclmulqdq11mo ago

"Panics are not crashes" is a new one. I'm referring to the fact that the rust code panics at the slightest sign of discomfort.

And they are very much more common than in most C codebases. C codebases are generally often overly permissive in what they accept (hence to security bugs). Rust made a different trade.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pclmulqdq11mo ago

In rust terminology, "safe" actually implies more frequent crashes on untrusted inputs.

mirashii11mo ago

woodruffwOP11mo ago

pclmulqdq11mo ago

"Panics are not crashes" is a new one. I'm referring to the fact that the rust code panics at the slightest sign of discomfort.

And they are very much more common than in most C codebases. C codebases are generally often overly permissive in what they accept (hence to security bugs). Rust made a different trade.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse