Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Isn't this confusing memory safety with safety?


sort by: page size:

Memory safety?

I'm not sure you understand what "memory safety" means.

I don't really understand why this doesn't cover memory safety.

That's not what memory safety refers to.

I see no mention of memory safety or unsafety in the issue you linked. Could you be more specific?

This is getting a bit defensive. I think people are interpreting your post as saying all safety is guaranteed by using memory safety, but you rightly walk it back in comments to mean it addresses "primary" security problems.

That's it.


Oh right, good point. Other types of memory safety are more relevant here then.

This is incorrect. What you're referring to is "memory safety".

its “memory safety”, not “accesses memory”

is memory safety not a real problem?

So memory safety is a cons point now?

That's not memory-unsafety. Memory-safety means avoiding bugs like buffer overflow, ROP, etc.

Isn't memory safety needed in all cases?

> without any memory safety

Actually, I think that would be memory protection, not safety.


The definition of memory safety is not "code that does not result in UB".

I misspoke, there is a gradient in safety, but "memory safe" is binary.

Memory safety is not the only type of safety though. There are race conditions for example.

Interesting, I hadn’t realized how much the phrase “memory safety” understates what is desirable.

Memory safety and type safety are different things. They usually go together, but not necessarily so.
next

Legal | privacy