7 ms·

What does "safest" mean in this context?

by kristofferR 8y ago

AndrewDucker 8y ago
"Written in Rust"
- blitmap 8y ago
  I'm trying to get my insurance discounted on my car. I should slap a "written in Rust" sticker on it. Safe driver discount?
  - pleasecalllater 8y ago
    It makes sense. If your car is covered with rust, you should be almost sure that no one will even try to steal it. :)
  - Crespyl 8y ago
    Given that automotive control software is apparently a huge mess right now, and a rapidly growing attack surface, a more disciplined rewrite in Rust might actually be enough for an insurance company to consider...
    - CUViper 8y ago
      PDXRust just had a related talk, "Writing Software That's Safe Enough To Drive A Car": https://www.meetup.com/PDXRust/events/252160920/ https://www.meetup.com/PDXRust/events/252160920/
jabl 8y ago
Presumably that it's implemented in Rust, and thus does not suffer from many of the usual bugs that C code bases suffer from? There seems to be some asm code as well, which obviously does not enjoy the safety advantages of Rust.
- arez 8y ago
  I always wondered if in practice it really checks out, is rust code really safer? Did the bugs just shift to different ones? Is there anyone who wrote about that already?
  - masklinn 8y ago
    It's probably not quite equivalent but I believe Frederico & al found & fixed a number of issues when they converted librsvg to rust. You may want to check the archives on their blogs (IIRC it's split between Frederico's own and the librsvg one) for more, or specifics. But "safe" rust at least intrinsically protects from use-after-free, double free, dangling pointers, null-pointer dereferences, out-of-bounds accesses, … You may still have logic bugs of course (though the richer type system expressivity also allows better static encoding of application & domain logic), but these baseline memory-safety issues will only be a problem in specific and tagged `unsafe` blocks rather than throughout the application.
    - kevincox 8y ago
      While I do believe that rust will prevent many memory safety issues. I think you would probably catch a bunch of safety issues rewriting any code.
      - ryanmarsh 8y ago
        I think you would probably catch a bunch of safety issues rewriting any code. As well as introduce new ones.
        kevincox 8y ago
        Of course. I would suspect that with Rust you would introduce less new ones but I just wanted to point out that finding bugs isn't evidence that the language helped you out. Even though I am a believer I would love to see some solid evidence of Rust making code safer.
        8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

What does "safest" mean in this context?

AndrewDucker 8y ago

"Written in Rust"

blitmap 8y ago
I'm trying to get my insurance discounted on my car. I should slap a "written in Rust" sticker on it. Safe driver discount?
- pleasecalllater 8y ago
  It makes sense. If your car is covered with rust, you should be almost sure that no one will even try to steal it. :)
- Crespyl 8y ago
  Given that automotive control software is apparently a huge mess right now, and a rapidly growing attack surface, a more disciplined rewrite in Rust might actually be enough for an insurance company to consider...
  - CUViper 8y ago
    PDXRust just had a related talk, "Writing Software That's Safe Enough To Drive A Car": https://www.meetup.com/PDXRust/events/252160920/ https://www.meetup.com/PDXRust/events/252160920/

jabl 8y ago

Presumably that it's implemented in Rust, and thus does not suffer from many of the usual bugs that C code bases suffer from? There seems to be some asm code as well, which obviously does not enjoy the safety advantages of Rust.

arez 8y ago
I always wondered if in practice it really checks out, is rust code really safer? Did the bugs just shift to different ones? Is there anyone who wrote about that already?
- masklinn 8y ago
  It's probably not quite equivalent but I believe Frederico & al found & fixed a number of issues when they converted librsvg to rust. You may want to check the archives on their blogs (IIRC it's split between Frederico's own and the librsvg one) for more, or specifics. But "safe" rust at least intrinsically protects from use-after-free, double free, dangling pointers, null-pointer dereferences, out-of-bounds accesses, … You may still have logic bugs of course (though the richer type system expressivity also allows better static encoding of application & domain logic), but these baseline memory-safety issues will only be a problem in specific and tagged `unsafe` blocks rather than throughout the application.
  - kevincox 8y ago
    While I do believe that rust will prevent many memory safety issues. I think you would probably catch a bunch of safety issues rewriting any code.
    - ryanmarsh 8y ago
      I think you would probably catch a bunch of safety issues rewriting any code. As well as introduce new ones.
      - kevincox 8y ago
        Of course. I would suspect that with Rust you would introduce less new ones but I just wanted to point out that finding bugs isn't evidence that the language helped you out. Even though I am a believer I would love to see some solid evidence of Rust making code safer.
      - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]