Comment by nixosbestos
6 days ago
It is mind-blowing the things people come up with when it comes to Rust vs C conversations. The same colvoluted crap for years at this point.
No, just no. I'm sorry, Ive implemented countless custom formats in Rust and have NEVER had to side step safe/unsafe or otherwise sacrifice type safety. Just what an absurd claim.
Maybe for some binary (de)serialization you get fancy (lol and are still likely to be far better off than with C) but goodness, I cannot imagine a single reason why a config file parser would need to be (type)-unsafe.
The person you replied to didn't say that you had to bypass safe. This bug is orthogonal to type and memory safety, its a different issue.
The git bug in question could be written in 100% safe rust using as much or as little of the type system[1] as you want. It's a logic error when parsing a string.
I dev rust full-time, and I've spent a lot of time writing protocol parsers. It's easy to forget to check this or that byte/string for every possible edge case as you're parsing it into some rust type, and happens all the time in rust, just like it did in C or python or go when I used those languages. This bug (if anything) is the type of thing that is solved with good tokenizer design and testing, and using more small, independently tested functions - again not at all related to the type system.
[1] Although in rust you can arrange your types so that this sort of bug is harder to implement or easier to catch than in most languages... but doing that requires an up-front understanding that logic bugs are just as possible in rust as in other languages, as well as some experience to avoid awkwardness when setting the types up.
In practice I think a Rust project would have used toml which parses safely. The limitation there would be that toml requires strings to be utf8, so it couldn't represent all possible unix paths.
Which kind of makes it an unsuitable solution for the given problem right? Git is not free to (or at least doesn't consider itself free to) work only on a subset of possible paths.
2 replies →