4 ms·

This kind of technique could also be applied to the parts of Firefox built with Rust, correct?

• rapsey 7y ago
  Rust is memory safe. It does not need this treatment.
  • azakai 7y ago
    It would still be useful in that case as defense in depth. Specifically it could guard against compiler bugs, use of "unsafe", etc.
    • est31 7y ago
      And conversely, if a C/C++ component is put into a wasm module, work that's needed to clearly specify the API can be re-used for any possible Rust rewrite in the future.
    • leni536 7y ago
      The wasm compiler can have its own bugs.
      • nwah1 7y ago
        That is why you should write it in Rust, obviously. ;)
      • cogman10 7y ago
        It's a smaller surface area that has a high amount of scrutiny. Particularly because it is already being exposed to arbitrary code execution.
• stjohnswarts 7y ago
  It could but Rust already solves the issues this is aiming to solve but with fewer steps. I don't know what Mozilla's policy is on adding Rust vs C++ for new features.
  • cogman10 7y ago
    I somewhat disagree. Safe rust solves the memory safety problem. However, there is still the possibility of a logic bug causing rust to touch something it shouldn't. The sandbox approach is about adding a second level for malicious code to bypass. You now not only need to find a way to get past the code, you also need to find a way out of the sandbox. It's a little like running your apps on a server with highly restricted permissions. You do that so the app compromise limits what is exposed.