this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
36 points (80.0% liked)
Open Source
31243 readers
251 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone has to explain how rm, which doesn’t allocate any memory (as far as I can tell), isn’t memory safe ?
In GNU coreutils the implementation of
rm
doesn't allocate memory however I believe alternative implementations do.Here's an example from the OpenBSD source code - https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/222e275fb89ffb67abe0726dee2b107220092dc3/bin/rm/rm.c#L335
Presumably other *BSDs use something similar? Didn't check out FreeBSD or anything.
Edit: So I suppose if you are using a BSD-type system (maybe including macOS?), and memory safety was important to you (to the point of extreme paranoia), then you might want to look into this rust project. Or just use the GNU implementation.
If I cant remember what dir I'm in, then rm is mot very memory safe is it?
[edit: spelling]
I guess
vpr -x
would be memory-safe that way then. ;)https://iv.ggtyler.dev/watch?v=emJsHKINn-s
I don't know whether
rm
is memory-safe or not, butvpr
is. By 'memory-safe alternative' I meant that this alternative is memory-safe, but not thatrm
isn't.Reminds me of when they started printing "vegan" and "gluten free" on water bottles.
ive heard they've even started putting halal water in my taps!