4 ms·
Or… you could use a memory safe language and not have to try and patch up things in hardware for buggy software. If we didn’t have Rust this would be super coo
by bfrog 2y ago
Or… you could use a memory safe language and not have to try and patch up things in hardware for buggy software.
If we didn’t have Rust this would be super cool. With Rust this seems like slapping flexseal on the leaky boat.
- astrange 2y agoMemory-safe languages aren't enough to protect you from incorrect syscalls/kernel bugs, bad JIT code, or attacker controlled processes writing into your memory. Secure hardware can help with all those things.
- tucnak 2y agoYou weren't fooled into believing that Rust = computer security, were you?
- bfrog 2y agoGoogle sure seems to think it’s solved and prevented many exploits. Do you have similar credentials to back your statement suggesting Rust doesn’t solve a category of security issues? The same kind this hardware extension is looking to solve?
- Wretched_Bstard 2y agoCHERIoT somewhat anticipated this perspective. https://cheriot.org/cheri/myths/2024/08/28/cheri-myths-safe-languages.html https://cheriot.org/cheri/myths/2024/08/28/cheri-myths-safe-...
- bfrog 2y agoThe entire premise seems to be that if you are stuck using not Rust in some way then CHERI helps. How is my comment not correct then? This is a bandaid to help poorly written code handle memory faults with hardware exceptions. MMU and MPUs do this as well without the cost of fat pointers which is non negligible. Rust does this with the compiler before the firmware even runs. Is it neat? Sure. Is it practical and useful? I’m skeptical.