zlacker

[return to "“Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety"]
1. tcfhgj+w4[view] [source] 2022-10-02 14:53:29
>>rvz+(OP)
> Not completing the operation at all, is not really any better than getting the wrong answer, it's only more debuggable.

Wouldn't be that sure about that. Getting the wrong answer can be a serious security problem. Not completing the operation... well, it is not good, but that's it.

◧◩
2. alerig+lh[view] [source] 2022-10-02 16:06:19
>>tcfhgj+w4
> Not completing the operation... well, it is not good, but that's it.

Depends on what the operation is. If the operation is flying an airplane or controlling a nuclear reaction, you are sure that not completing the operation and just aborting the program is the worst outcome possible. Beside the error can crash the plane or melt down the nuclear reactor, but may also not have any effect at all, e.g. a buffer overflow overwrites a memory area that is not used for anything important.

Of course these are extreme example (for which Linux is of course out of discussion since it doesn't offer the level of safety guaranteed required), but we can make other examples.

One example could be your own PC. If you use Linux, take a look at the dmesg output and count the number of errors: there are probably a lot of them, for multiple reason. You surely want your system to continue running, and not panic on each of them!

[go to top]