3 ms·

> To just throw your hands up and claim the threat levels are somehow comparable to each other is just disingenuous I'm not, I'm saying they are for some. Dif

> To just throw your hands up and claim the threat levels are somehow comparable to each other is just disingenuous I'm not, I'm saying they are for some. Different folks have different trust models. I'm saying that it's a logical threat/trust model where you both trust the compiler and the kernel. This isn't everyone's model. This is clearly not yours. But this wasn't clear in the original comment and cwzwarich addressed this model (as well as yours!) and that's what I was saying. Defense in depth is good, but, again, that wasn't what was being _asked for_. You forcibly took a discussion in a different direction from what was originally being discussed, reframing everything to a strictly absolutist view of trust, and are somehow bewildered that folks aren't understanding what you're saying. I don't really see the point in this discussion -- it's a metadiscussion about whether or not including an "assuming safety" portion in a comment was appropriate, and doesn't add anything.

mehrdadn 9y ago
> You forcibly took a discussion in a different direction from what was originally being discussed, reframing everything to a strictly absolutist view of trust, and are somehow bewildered that folks aren't understanding what you're saying. Huh? My trust model was the same as that of those who want memory to be zero'd, like the one earlier [1]. People ask for that because so many attacks we see today are in external libraries and kernel-mode, and hence people are worried about that. That is not something in my fantasy; that's the model of the world we live in. You guys decided to deliberately ignore that and pretend a safe language implies worrying about attacks in external code is ridiculous. I was trying to steer back the discussion to that model. Apparently I failed; you guys win. Rust programs are invincible by definition. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15967604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15967604
- Manishearth 9y ago
  > Apparently I failed; you guys win. Rust programs are invincible by definition. This is not what I'm saying, and you're being deliberately obtuse at this point. > My trust model was the same as that of those who want memory to be zero'd, like the one earlier [1]. This person was asking about network exploits where this has been a problem. Rust helps prevent those exploits. Does it fix the problem completely? Of course not. Does it fix the problem to the point where it's "not worth worrying about"? Depends, depends on where you stop worrying about things, and this is why the original commented addressed both cases. Revisit the first comment and consider if others perhaps interpreted it more broadly than you. I am done discussing this. You're putting words into my mouth, and being deliberately obtuse.

mehrdadn 9y ago

> You forcibly took a discussion in a different direction from what was originally being discussed, reframing everything to a strictly absolutist view of trust, and are somehow bewildered that folks aren't understanding what you're saying. Huh? My trust model was the same as that of those who want memory to be zero'd, like the one earlier [1]. People ask for that because so many attacks we see today are in external libraries and kernel-mode, and hence people are worried about that. That is not something in my fantasy; that's the model of the world we live in. You guys decided to deliberately ignore that and pretend a safe language implies worrying about attacks in external code is ridiculous. I was trying to steer back the discussion to that model. Apparently I failed; you guys win. Rust programs are invincible by definition. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15967604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15967604

Manishearth 9y ago
> Apparently I failed; you guys win. Rust programs are invincible by definition. This is not what I'm saying, and you're being deliberately obtuse at this point. > My trust model was the same as that of those who want memory to be zero'd, like the one earlier [1]. This person was asking about network exploits where this has been a problem. Rust helps prevent those exploits. Does it fix the problem completely? Of course not. Does it fix the problem to the point where it's "not worth worrying about"? Depends, depends on where you stop worrying about things, and this is why the original commented addressed both cases. Revisit the first comment and consider if others perhaps interpreted it more broadly than you. I am done discussing this. You're putting words into my mouth, and being deliberately obtuse.