this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
298 points (98.4% liked)

Linux

48328 readers
641 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DacoTaco@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (14 children)

Serious question, how would using rust avoid this? Rust still has reference types in the background, right? Still has a way to put stuff on the heap too? Those are the only 2 requirements for reusing memory bugs

[–] sleep_deprived@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (13 children)

This is a use-after-free, which should be impossible in safe Rust due to the borrow checker. The only way for this to happen would be incorrect unsafe code (still possible, but dramatically reduced code surface to worry about) or a compiler bug. To allocate heap space in safe Rust, you have to use types provided by the language like Box, Rc, Vec, etc. To free that space (in Rust terminology, dropping it by using drop() or letting it go out of scope) you must be the owner of it and there may be current borrows (i.e. no references may exist). Once the variable is droped, the variable is dead so accessing it is a compiler error, and the compiler/std handles freeing the memory.

There's some extra semantics to some of that but that's pretty much it. These kind of memory bugs are basically Rust's raison d'etre - it's been carefully designed to make most memory bugs impossible without using unsafe. If you'd like more information I'd be happy to provide!

[–] DacoTaco@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Thanks for the response. Ive heard of rust's compiler being very smart and checking a ton of stuff. Its good thing it does, but i feel like there are things that can cause this issues rust cant catch. Cant put my finger on it.
What would rust do if you have a class A create something on the heap, and it passes this variable ( by ref ? ) to class B, which saves the value into a private variable in class B. Class A gets out of scope, and would be cleaned up. What it put on the heap would be cleaned up, but class B still has a reference(?) to the value on the heap, no? How would rust handle such a case?

[–] been_jamming@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

It's not like C where you have control over when you can make references to data. The compiler will stop you from making references in the cases where a memory bug would be possible.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)