MSRC-Security-Research VS wg-allocators

You’ll find more primary sources across different organizations that all arrive at the 60 - 70% number. But what really grinds my gears here is that you take a piece from the article you’re criticizing and pretend that it’s a quote from Matt Miller.

It’s actually quite easy to find a primary source here because the slides from the talk that the article is based on are available: https://github.com/microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/blob/mas...

To quote from those slides: „~70% of the vulnerabilities addressed through a security update each year continue to be memory safety issues“.

> It's still bizarre though that Rust is capturing such ridiculous mindshare.

I don't think it's that bizarre. The two big headline features that bring Rust such popularity are: #1 "70% of bugs are memory-safety bugs" [1] and Rust can help solve those, and #2 C/C++ have a couple of package manager solutions - none of which have critical mass and Rust "comes with" cargo.

Those two make me really eager to continue experimenting with Rust.

> It seems to be a temporary low-level programming zeitgeist driven by YouTube and Reddit recommendation algorithms to an audience that has never done it and probably never will.

This is some weird gatekeep-y kinda thing. Most of us didn't start out with low-level programming. Wouldn't it have been odd and frustrating for someone to tell your younger self that you have "never written C and probably never will"?

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research

https://github.com/microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/blob/mas...

Windows is likely a big task for the same reasons as SMAP (https://github.com/microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/blob/mas...). XNU should be comparable to FreeBSD, which CheriBSD is a fork of, as both use Mach's VM for memory management and have a bunch of shared code in various places, but userspace is more of an unknown quite how much effort it'd be (you'll need to port Objective-C and, now, Swift, for example). For Chromium we have ported WebKit, so I'd imagine Blink isn't too dissimilar. V8 is likely interesting, though we have a version of WebKit's JSC JIT for Morello, which gives confidence in V8 being doable.

A related post from Google Security Blog[0]:

> "A recent study[1] found that "~70% of the vulnerabilities addressed through a security update each year continue to be memory safety issues.” Another analysis on security issues in the ubiquitous `curl` command line tool showed that 53 out of 95 bugs would have been completely prevented by using a memory-safe language. [...]"

[0]: https://security.googleblog.com/2021/02/mitigating-memory-sa...

[1]: https://github.com/Microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/blob/mas...

Here is some of the internal advocacy going on at Microsoft.

- Managed languages if you can afford a GC

- Rust

- C++ with Core Guidelines

https://github.com/microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/tree/mas...

Note that there are still some teams like Azure Sphere and Azure RTOS, which are only providing C based SDKs, so no everyone is on the same wave length.

Tracking issue for Storages, and a TLDR on what it is

I must have gotten confused, since from your brief discussion with CAD97 it seemed like there was a way for the concepts to live separately and that Storage could complicate things in comparison. But if implementing Allocator in terms of Storage is basically equivalent and Storage is flexible enough that I could write one to pass memory out to unsafe code, that works just as well.

https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1974-global-allocators.html was the original RFC.

My vague understanding is that there's a working group https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators

The further I get from working on Rust day to day, the less I know about these things, so that's all I've got for you.

If you self-reference using pointers and guarantee the struct will never move, you don't even need unsafe. If you self-reference using offsets from the struct's base pointer, you need a splash of unsafe but your struct can be freely moved without invalidating its self-referential "pointers".

Per-struct allocators are a work in progress (see https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/48).

Not sure what "non thread local addresses" means, but in my experience Rust is pretty good at sending data between threads (without moving it).

Besides that allocation is not really a problem for no_std. It's resolved by using alloc crate directly, so anything usable with custom allocators is supported. Example in dasp sources - https://github.com/RustAudio/dasp/blob/master/dasp_slice/src/boxed.rs#L14-L19 . Also worth looking at this issue to check what is usable already - https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/7

But that's on track for rust as well: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/7

Here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1398. there is also a working group for this: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators.

It's unstable. wg-allocators contains discussions about design and a tracking issue for collections that need an allocator https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/7