5 ms·

I totally get that, but my stance on the matter is that some of the software we're talking about is just as memory safe as a new Rust rewrite because it doesn't

by ok_dad 4y ago

I totally get that, but my stance on the matter is that some of the software we're talking about is just as memory safe as a new Rust rewrite because it doesn't do anything unsafe, but the rewrite could introduce other bugs and differences that could break things. I would say I don't stand on the side of "rewrite nothing", but I'm more of a realist here, in that we absolutely cannot "rewrite everything" perfectly in a memory safe language, and we should first determine if a particular tool should be rewritten in a memory safe language by doing some analysis and testing on that tool. Certainly, even though I know no Rust and am not an expert in memory safety, I would say that in the future we should try not to write totally new software in memory unsafe languages, but I'm not everyone so I can't make that rule and ensure it sticks.

tptacek 4y ago
Your stance, that audited C code is "just as memory safe" as new Rust, is wildly outside of the mainstream of software security. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're unlikely to find many qualified people to dive into a debate as unproductive as that. Plenty of carefully audited C code has later been found to have terrible flaws, and likely will again in the future.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  Well then I guess "mainstream of software security" needs to do a better marketing job to explain to dumb programmers like me why I should be using memory safe programming languages! Seriously, I would love to see a succinct explanation for the "rewrite everything" philosophy, but it seems religiously dogmatic to me so far and has done the opposite of convince me to use Rust (or another memory-safe language). On the other hand, the "statically typed language" community has done a great job of convincing me that I should be using statically typed programming languages by showing many examples of where typing would help me in my day to day work, and now I like using Go a lot and I avoid tons of issues I had with Python in the past.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No, they don't. Not in this case, at least. They can just build better software, and it will get adopted. You're writing Go already, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to burn time in pointless debates about this stuff. Carry on! You're already doing it right.
    - ok_dad 4y ago
      I wanted to point you at this, which is example zero for why rewriting in "memory safe language number X" isn't always the best path: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33171028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33171028 I'm definitely not debating that using better languages is better, but what I am saying is that some tools written in C have been effectively tested in the real-world by being on billions of machines and being used millions of times per day. I am not totally sure, but I think if there were major issues with the current NTP implementations we would probably have found them by now? Maybe not! But, in any case, rewrites need to be more carefully considered, planned, and executed than just some people I don't know writing a new NTP in Rust and stating it's fine to use for 80% of cases. Thanks for having a nice discussion with me, I think I am a bit more convinced that we need to rewrite some stuff, but perhaps also more convinced that we need to do a better job of picking what to rewrite and why!
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Yes, I understand the point you're making that sufficiently audited C code is as safe as Rust. No, it isn't. Where that sufficiently-audited C code is feasible to replace, it will all be replaced. Browsers may take a decade or two, but C/C++-language NTP servers had better head for the bunkers and hope for some global cataclysm to halt all progress in the industry.
        ok_dad 4y ago
        > the point you're making that sufficiently audited C code is as safe as Rust The point I am actually trying to make is that memory safety is not the only consideration for security and safety. If you make a memory safe NTP and there turns out to be bad logic inside that code that does something allowing a security hole, then that's just as bad, if not worse, than using the decades-old software that did not have that bad logic, because that software has been tested in the real world day in day out for DECADES. I trust (somewhat) that Rust isn't going to allow unsafe memory access. I don't trust that Rust programmers can write code with no bugs that's better than a tool that has been refined over generations of programmers. Memory safe programming is a tech solution to a human problem (human imperfection). Again, new projects should be written in a memory safe language, but that's a whole other topic, IMO.
stoplying1 4y ago
What you're doing is just FUD bordering on some kind of weird concern trolling. Gonna blow your mind when I tell you every single coreutil on my system is built with Rust and moreover nearly every program on my system was BUILT with that Rust-built coreutils. Amazingly emulating some existing program behavior in Rust is easier than writing safe C! Who would've guessed? (besides eeveyone else watching and betting on Rust for the past 8 years)
- ok_dad 4y ago
  See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33179880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33179880

by ok_dad 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

Your stance, that audited C code is "just as memory safe" as new Rust, is wildly outside of the mainstream of software security. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're unlikely to find many qualified people to dive into a debate as unproductive as that. Plenty of carefully audited C code has later been found to have terrible flaws, and likely will again in the future.

ok_dad 4y ago
Well then I guess "mainstream of software security" needs to do a better marketing job to explain to dumb programmers like me why I should be using memory safe programming languages! Seriously, I would love to see a succinct explanation for the "rewrite everything" philosophy, but it seems religiously dogmatic to me so far and has done the opposite of convince me to use Rust (or another memory-safe language). On the other hand, the "statically typed language" community has done a great job of convincing me that I should be using statically typed programming languages by showing many examples of where typing would help me in my day to day work, and now I like using Go a lot and I avoid tons of issues I had with Python in the past.
- tptacek 4y ago
  No, they don't. Not in this case, at least. They can just build better software, and it will get adopted. You're writing Go already, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to burn time in pointless debates about this stuff. Carry on! You're already doing it right.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    I wanted to point you at this, which is example zero for why rewriting in "memory safe language number X" isn't always the best path: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33171028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33171028 I'm definitely not debating that using better languages is better, but what I am saying is that some tools written in C have been effectively tested in the real-world by being on billions of machines and being used millions of times per day. I am not totally sure, but I think if there were major issues with the current NTP implementations we would probably have found them by now? Maybe not! But, in any case, rewrites need to be more carefully considered, planned, and executed than just some people I don't know writing a new NTP in Rust and stating it's fine to use for 80% of cases. Thanks for having a nice discussion with me, I think I am a bit more convinced that we need to rewrite some stuff, but perhaps also more convinced that we need to do a better job of picking what to rewrite and why!
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Yes, I understand the point you're making that sufficiently audited C code is as safe as Rust. No, it isn't. Where that sufficiently-audited C code is feasible to replace, it will all be replaced. Browsers may take a decade or two, but C/C++-language NTP servers had better head for the bunkers and hope for some global cataclysm to halt all progress in the industry.
      - ok_dad 4y ago
        > the point you're making that sufficiently audited C code is as safe as Rust The point I am actually trying to make is that memory safety is not the only consideration for security and safety. If you make a memory safe NTP and there turns out to be bad logic inside that code that does something allowing a security hole, then that's just as bad, if not worse, than using the decades-old software that did not have that bad logic, because that software has been tested in the real world day in day out for DECADES. I trust (somewhat) that Rust isn't going to allow unsafe memory access. I don't trust that Rust programmers can write code with no bugs that's better than a tool that has been refined over generations of programmers. Memory safe programming is a tech solution to a human problem (human imperfection). Again, new projects should be written in a memory safe language, but that's a whole other topic, IMO.

stoplying1 4y ago

What you're doing is just FUD bordering on some kind of weird concern trolling. Gonna blow your mind when I tell you every single coreutil on my system is built with Rust and moreover nearly every program on my system was BUILT with that Rust-built coreutils. Amazingly emulating some existing program behavior in Rust is easier than writing safe C! Who would've guessed? (besides eeveyone else watching and betting on Rust for the past 8 years)

ok_dad 4y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33179880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33179880