2 ms·
The safety can be worth it in certain cases. Like when handling untrusted input. And it's not just Rust: look at WUFFS for example. WUFFS can actually rival han
by LoganDark 5mo ago
The safety can be worth it in certain cases. Like when handling untrusted input. And it's not just Rust: look at WUFFS for example. WUFFS can actually rival handwritten implementations in certain cases.
- throawayonthe 5mo agobut not these cases
- IshKebab 5mo agoI don't see why not. What makes you think this is unique?
- adgjlsfhk1 5mo agoWUFFS like approaches work better for algorithms like lz77 that are substantially bandwidth constrained. for something like a video codec, the computational intensity is much higher so you need better codegen to reach max speed
- bigyabai 5mo agoIt really should be, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORCEDENTRY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORCEDENTRY
- xp84 5mo agoAre video codecs in the present day able to be sandboxed? In my fantasies at least I’d like the worst a malicious video file can do is cause garbage output or cause the codec to crash. Forgive the ignorance, I have worked entirely in the abstracted layers of the stack, and mostly web.
- adgjlsfhk1 5mo agonot really. they're mostly pure assembly and sandboxing assembly isn't really a things
- nullpoint420 5mo agoyes it is. all modern operating systems sandbox assembly. that's how it works.
- LoganDark 5mo agoWindows may use virtualization-based security by default, but I'm not aware of macOS or Linux doing the same -- Apple builds security directly into the silicon such that no virtualization is required, and Linux just rawdogs everything. Whether that counts is up to you. I suppose it's still "sandboxed" in that it runs in a less privileged context than the kernel.