4 ms·
> Another benefit of Rust is that we can use its standard library and package ecosystem, so our NTP implementation is much smaller (hence easier to validate) th
by manfre 4y ago
> Another benefit of Rust is that we can use its standard library and package ecosystem, so our NTP implementation is much smaller (hence easier to validate) than the alternatives
It might be easier to validate the code in their repo, but I feel like they are ignoring the effort that would be needed to validate all of the very large number of dependencies.
- staticassertion 4y agoIf their major concern is memory unsafety it's a lot easier. Most dependencies don't use any unsafe, and instead there's usually just a few libraries pulled in across them that do. One of the best parts of auditing rust (for memory unsafety) is that you can just "grep for unsafe" and know exactly where to start.
- strangemonad 4y agoThere is a bunch of well funded work to tackle validating various aspects of rust, the std library, and ecosystem. For example rust-belt led by Derek Dryer https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/ https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/
- raggi 4y agoWhat is the most fascinating thing you learned when you read ntpd's configure script? What is the most interesting thing you learned reading glibc? Were you at all concerned when you discovered that the sources come from http-only servers and only have un-signed md5's for checksums? Did you find the support for HP-UX distracting?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brundolf 4y agoMost of the dependencies I see listed in this project are upstanding, household-name crates. Personally I'd feel more confident using those (which have many other eyes on them) than maintaining custom in-house implementations of complex (but standard) building-blocks