3 ms·
Well, yes and no. The surface area for memory-unsafe problems is much smaller, but it's still there. To @cheez's point, Mirage did contain a very dangerous vuln
by sgrove 11y ago
Well, yes and no. The surface area for memory-unsafe problems is much smaller, but it's still there. To @cheez's point, Mirage did contain a very dangerous vulnerability (see https://www.somerandomidiot.com/blog/2014/07/09/how-to-set-the-evil-bit/ https://www.somerandomidiot.com/blog/2014/07/09/how-to-set-t...).
I'm optimistic that long term it's a great and obviously worthwhile tradeoff, even though the new stack (and all of https://nqsb.io https://nqsb.io really) is going to need a lot of real-world usage and examination.
Also, size and startup time are definitely pretty cool metrics (or at least fun metrics), and I'm happy to see both decrease!
- nickpsecurity 11y agoThe tech IncludeOS builds on had a lot more than that in its lifetime. No telling what IncludeOS will have once people start digging into it. There's an order of magnitude difference in host compromises between safe and unsafe code. That's the point. The language also has advantages in further analysis (eg type system), safe extension, and maintenance. So, even an apples to oranges comparison of the two on size looks in Ocaml's favor as you get more for you KB. :)