Kernel buffer overflow exposes iPhone 11 Pro to radio based attacks
Dukc
ajieskola at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 15:42:27 UTC 2020
On Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 13:25:49 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 09.12.20 12:46, Dukc wrote:
>>
>> It might have some benefit: If non-annotated C libraries are
>> considered `@safe`, it'll mean that not-so-quality code is
>> using compromised `@safe`. Bad. But if they are considered
>> `@system`, not-so-quality code will not be using `@safe` AT
>> ALL. Even worse.
>
> That's a bit like saying it's bad if products produced using
> slave labour don't get a fair trade label.
You're thinking `@safe` as a certificate. It can definitely help
in doing certifying reviews, but it's also supposed to be a tool
to catch mistakes - for all code, not just for code that wants to
certify. That it won't catch mistakes from using the C code does
not prevent it from catching other unrelated mistakes. That's
still better than nothing if we don't pretend that the C headers
are certified.
One can still add a comment to describe why the code is annotated
`@safe` or `@trusted`.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list