Hacker News Reader

For people downvoting, could you please explain which part of this statement you agree or disagree with?

The design of io_uring has nothing to do with the language the Linux kernel is implemented in. And safer languages really can't provide guarantees when the issue at hand is designing a shared memory cross-executable (kernel⋄userspace) API.

Just having first class slice types, where your pointer is paired with a length, which allows for doing bounds checking automatically is a huge upgrade over C, even if it doesn't solve every other problem.

Security exploits from out of bounds access should not be happening today, bounds checking is a solved problem, and has been solved for decades.

Time to make the point that not even C authors were able to change WG14 mind on the necessity of having fat pointers.

https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/vararray.pdf

That's a pretty interesting paper. Thanks for sharing it. I wonder why Dennis Ritchie, with the weight his name carries, wasn't able to push it into mainstream implementation...

Because once a language is managed by ISO, that doesn't matter, the author gets one vote like everyone else.

So this shows how the majority of WG14 members see security in C.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com