6 ms·

Can someone please fix the title to the original in the blog ('Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software'), because the current title is not at al

by roel_v 6y ago

Can someone please fix the title to the original in the blog ('Mitigating Memory Safety Issues in Open Source Software'), because the current title is not at all representative of what the blog is actually saying.

praptak 6y ago
Also "for rewriting popular systems in Rust" is just false. The blog is about improving memory safety and gives two pieces of software rewritten in Rust as an example. There's nothing about this effort being focused on rewriting things in Rust.
- wyldfire 6y ago
  Are you sure? > That’s why we’re expanding our collaboration with the Internet Security Research Group to support the reimplementation of critical open-source software in memory-safe languages. Though the rest of the article doesn't go into detail about this effort beyond http/TLS libs for curl.
  - smoyer 6y ago
    The quote you provide above doesn't specify that these rewrites are to be in Rust and I don't think you've contradicted the parent in any way. The examples have been in Rust but the foundation doesn't seem to insist on rewrites being done in a specific language. As an aside, the foundation doesn't seem to be much more than a collection of papers at this point.
  - praptak 6y ago
    The "memory-safe languages" may mean Go, Java and a bunch of other less popular languages.
    - oscargrouch 6y ago
      In the end of the day only Rust will be chosen because we are talking mostly about system infrastructure.
  - jaas 6y ago
    Rust is going to be used often, but we are open to other choices when they make sense. Since most unsafe code is C or C++, Rust usually makes the most sense for rewriting one component at a time. It integrates with C and C++ very cleanly because it has good FFI and no runtime. If we were rewriting more projects from scratch and integration with existing C and C++ code was not important, we might use other languages more often. I don't expect we'll attempt to rewrite many pieces of software from scratch. Source: I run the memory safety initiative at ISRG.
- nick_ 6y ago
  HN is like 15% pro-Rust propaganda these days.
  - iwasanewt 6y ago
    Have you considered the possibility that people might just like it?
- tptacek 6y ago
  You're going to see a lot of Rust, because by and large the programs ISRG and Google are talking about remain in memory-unsafe languages because they have constituencies where dynamic-runtime memory-safe languages are problematic. That's why security people are so excited about Rust: it's hard to come up with modern settings where Rust is unworkable, unlike Go (a language I prefer to Rust), which, for instance, isn't a good fit for the Linux kernel or for the guts of Chromium.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    There's a ton of platforms that Rust doesn't not target, or targets but without many guarantees of support. The can be problematic as its closest competitors (C++, but especially C) generally have much more widespread support.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      That's a problem, but it's one that's more likely to be worked around (most likely: by maintaining unsafe forks for those platforms) than "creating entire new communities of support for another language" or "redesigning whole projects to make GC tenable". I think you might see some full-system rewrites for serverside components where Go will work out. But I think the projects we're talking about, like I said, have ended up in this position mostly because they can't easily be written in Go, or they already would have been (if only be a competitor).
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Oh, I'm not suggesting that they will use Go–they will use C and I'm just responding to you saying that it is difficult to find situations where Rust is unworkable.
        tptacek 6y ago
        The premise of this story is that ISRG is going to secure funding to essentially bribe people (my words, and I think it's a very good project) to not keep critical software in C anymore. My guess is what will happen in the cases where Rust is unworkable is that there will be less-secure forks for the obscure platforms.
theandrewbailey 6y ago
I'm a native english speaker, and I've never seen the word "fundings" in my life. Edit: the submission title is fixed.
- themarkers 6y ago
  Might be reinventing the wheel ;D

by roel_v 6y ago

praptak 6y ago

Also "for rewriting popular systems in Rust" is just false. The blog is about improving memory safety and gives two pieces of software rewritten in Rust as an example. There's nothing about this effort being focused on rewriting things in Rust.

wyldfire 6y ago
Are you sure? > That’s why we’re expanding our collaboration with the Internet Security Research Group to support the reimplementation of critical open-source software in memory-safe languages. Though the rest of the article doesn't go into detail about this effort beyond http/TLS libs for curl.
- smoyer 6y ago
  The quote you provide above doesn't specify that these rewrites are to be in Rust and I don't think you've contradicted the parent in any way. The examples have been in Rust but the foundation doesn't seem to insist on rewrites being done in a specific language. As an aside, the foundation doesn't seem to be much more than a collection of papers at this point.
- praptak 6y ago
  The "memory-safe languages" may mean Go, Java and a bunch of other less popular languages.
  - oscargrouch 6y ago
    In the end of the day only Rust will be chosen because we are talking mostly about system infrastructure.
- jaas 6y ago
  Rust is going to be used often, but we are open to other choices when they make sense. Since most unsafe code is C or C++, Rust usually makes the most sense for rewriting one component at a time. It integrates with C and C++ very cleanly because it has good FFI and no runtime. If we were rewriting more projects from scratch and integration with existing C and C++ code was not important, we might use other languages more often. I don't expect we'll attempt to rewrite many pieces of software from scratch. Source: I run the memory safety initiative at ISRG.
nick_ 6y ago
HN is like 15% pro-Rust propaganda these days.
- iwasanewt 6y ago
  Have you considered the possibility that people might just like it?
tptacek 6y ago
You're going to see a lot of Rust, because by and large the programs ISRG and Google are talking about remain in memory-unsafe languages because they have constituencies where dynamic-runtime memory-safe languages are problematic. That's why security people are so excited about Rust: it's hard to come up with modern settings where Rust is unworkable, unlike Go (a language I prefer to Rust), which, for instance, isn't a good fit for the Linux kernel or for the guts of Chromium.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  There's a ton of platforms that Rust doesn't not target, or targets but without many guarantees of support. The can be problematic as its closest competitors (C++, but especially C) generally have much more widespread support.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    That's a problem, but it's one that's more likely to be worked around (most likely: by maintaining unsafe forks for those platforms) than "creating entire new communities of support for another language" or "redesigning whole projects to make GC tenable". I think you might see some full-system rewrites for serverside components where Go will work out. But I think the projects we're talking about, like I said, have ended up in this position mostly because they can't easily be written in Go, or they already would have been (if only be a competitor).
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Oh, I'm not suggesting that they will use Go–they will use C and I'm just responding to you saying that it is difficult to find situations where Rust is unworkable.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        The premise of this story is that ISRG is going to secure funding to essentially bribe people (my words, and I think it's a very good project) to not keep critical software in C anymore. My guess is what will happen in the cases where Rust is unworkable is that there will be less-secure forks for the obscure platforms.

theandrewbailey 6y ago

I'm a native english speaker, and I've never seen the word "fundings" in my life. Edit: the submission title is fixed.

themarkers 6y ago
Might be reinventing the wheel ;D