5 ms·
While I now mostly agree with you that there is more unsafe code than there should be, I still maintain that the frequency of unsafe in a deptree is usually sti
by Manishearth 10y ago
While I now mostly agree with you that there is more unsafe code than there should be, I still maintain that the frequency of unsafe in a deptree is usually still small enough to be practically auditable, ignoring FFI. It could/should be much less, but it's not too bad. I've done such audits a few times and it's not been too hard and taken very little time.
Auditing FFI is a whole other challenge, however :(
- staticassertion 10y agoHmmmm. Note to self - actually try to audit a reasonably sized project's unsafe code to see how reasonable it is.
- pjmlp 10y ago> I still maintain that the frequency of unsafe in a deptree is usually still small enough to be practically auditable Not in binary libraries, hence why it is important to have a culture to only use unsafe if it really must be used.
- Manishearth 10y agoWell, yeah, but you don't really download Rust binary libraries yet :) You do have C libraries which you access through FFI. This is inevitably unsafe. We should be auditing more there. Though IMO it's still manageable, for most crates.