3 ms·
As-per my edit, simply by virtue of using glibc your program is no longer safe. Glibc has had vulnerabilities, and continues to do so (as unknown unknowns - jus
by zamalek 3y ago
As-per my edit, simply by virtue of using glibc your program is no longer safe. Glibc has had vulnerabilities, and continues to do so (as unknown unknowns - just like all C software). If you're not using any stdlib then maybe.
- bigstrat2003 3y agoThat's still a bad argument imo. By that logic there's pretty much no such thing as safe software, in any language. Even Rust links to glibc if you're using std on Linux, as far as I'm aware (you can use MUSL but afaik glibc is the default). Does that mean that there's no such thing as safe software in Rust? I agree that C has safety issues and we should move away from it. Heck, I'll go further: C is a bad language and the people defending its sharp edges (in particular around UB) have a weird Stockholm syndrome with their language of choice. But it is definitely not categorically untrue that safe C software exists, and I don't think that it helps to fight overly broad claims with overly broad claims.