Comment by int_19h

Comment by int_19h a day ago

3 replies

It's not an either-or (well, except for this last item).

It seems sensible to not write new software in plain C. Rust is certainly a valid choice for a safer language, but in many cases overkill wrt how painful the rewrite is vs benefits gained from avoiding a higher-level memory-safe one like OCaml.

At the same time, "let's just rewrite everything!" is also madness. We have many battle-tested libraries written in C already. Something like Fil-C is badly needed to keep them working while improving safety.

And as for wasm, it's sort of orthogonal - whether you're writing in C or in Rust, the software may be bug-free, but sandboxing it may still be desirable e.g. as a matter of trust (or lack thereof). Also, cross-platform binaries would be nice to have in general.

vacuity a day ago

> the software may be bug-free, but sandboxing it may still be desirable e.g. as a matter of trust (or lack thereof)

Wouldn't the only cause of mistrust be bugs, or am I missing something? If the program is malicious, sandboxing isn't the pertinent action.

  • int_19h 15 hours ago

    If any program can potentially be malicious (which is the effectively the case today with any downloaded software), then sandboxing is exactly the pertinent action - provided that the sandbox is tight enough.

    • vacuity 14 hours ago

      I should have elaborated. If a program is known to be malicious, or should be treated as malicious, then it should probably be terminated. Given a potentially malicious program and no easy way to determine (lack of) malice, sandboxing is a reasonable measure.