It leaves room for experimentation with reference counting and variations on the invisible capability system which could provide memory savings at the expense of some extra indirection.
This limitation would be fine if Fil-C proponents (including its author) didn't try to shout down anyone pointing out this limitation.
// global
foo* p = initial();
// Thread 1
p = something_else();
// Thread 2
p[attacker_controlled_index] = value;
But sure, you can just bleat Pizlo's claims of safety instead of engaging with the substance of his runtime model. The point is that Fil-C does not provide full memory safety, and cannot until it updates pointer and capability atomically, and it can't do that without paying much more for general memory access than it does today.
i.e., either of these forms:
foo * volatile p;
foo * _Atomic p;
> Upon freeing an unreachable AllocationRecord, call filc_free on it.
I think the intention was to say: before freeing an unreachable AR, free the memory pointed to by its visible_bytes and invisible_bytes fields.
1. Fil-C is slower and bigger. Noticeably so. If you were OK with slower and bigger then the rewrite you should have considered wasn't to Rust in the last ten years but to Java or C# much earlier. That doesn't invalidate Fil'C's existence, but I want to point that out.
2. You're still writing C. If the program is finished or just occasionally doing a little bit of maintenance that's fine. I wrote C for most of my career, it's not a miserable language, and you are avoiding a rewrite. But if you're writing much new code Rust is just so much nicer. I stopped writing any C when I learned Rust.
3. This is runtime safety and you might need more. Rust gives you a bit more, often you can express at compile time things Fil-C would only have checked at runtime, but you might need everything and languages like WUFFS deliver that. WUFFS doesn't have runtime checks. It has proved to its satisfaction during compilation that your code is safe, so it can be executed at runtime in absolute safety. Your code might be wrong. Maybe your WUFFS GIF flipper actually makes frog GIFs purple instead of flipping them. But it can't crash, or execute x86 machine code hidden in the GIF, or whatever, that's the whole point.
I'm not convinced that tying the lifetimes into the type system is the correct way to do memory management. I've read too many articles of people being forced into refactoring the entire codebase to implement a feature.
Not some random dad, but a GC expert and former leader of the JavaScript VM team at Apple.
Type systems used to be THE sexy PL research topic for about twenty years or so, so all the programming languages innovation has been about doing everything with type systems.
Imagine you're writing a library for, let's say, astronomical and orbital calculations. Writing it in Java means that it's always going to be slow. If you write it in C, NASA may decide to compile it with a normal compiler (because it won't ever be exposed to malicious inputs), while an astronomy website operator may use the Fil-C version for the extra security, at the cost of having to use slightly more computing resources, which are abundant on Earth.
This doesn't negate the advantages of Rust, which lets you get speed and performance at the same time.
That doesn't quite make sense. The point of Fil-C, is to not have to rewrite in any other language, because it's still C. But now, there are safety benefits, though there is a trade-off with size and speed. Even in that context, size and speed, it can be very acceptable to many people and Fil-C will improve in that department as time goes on.
> Rust is just so much nicer.
That clearly is your own personal opinion that not everyone shares. There are many people who do not like Rust.
It's not any slower or (proportionally) bigger compared to the experience you would have had 20 years ago running all sorts of utilities that happen to be the best candidates for Fil-C, and people got along just fine. How fast do ls and mkdir need to be?
If you tell your boss "We spent $1m on servers this month and that's as cheap as its possible to be" he'll be like "ok fine". If you say "We spent $1m on servers this month but if we just disable this compiler security flag it could be $500k." ... you can guess what will happen.
(Counterpoint though: people use Python.)
But counter-counterpoint: Rust does so much more than preventing runtime memory errors. Even if Fil-C had no overhead (or I was using CHERI) I would still use Rust.
It sure does. Like making your build times slower (and bigger) than if you were using the equivalent tooling for Pascal, C, or Zig.
I think GP is talking about not-directly-related-to-safety things like sum types/pattern matching/traits/expressive type systems/etc. given the end of that paragraph. I don't think you can get "equivalent tooling" for such things the languages you list without raising interesting questions about what actually counts as Pascal/C/Zig.
> I don't think you can get "equivalent tooling" for such things the languages you list without raising interesting questions about what actually counts as Pascal/C/Zig.
I said builds. All of the languages I mentioned have "equivalent tooling" for that (i.e. compilers—to produce builds for the programs you choose to write in those languages).
Oh, my mistake. Given the context I thought you were talking about some hypothetical tooling that gave you something approaching Rust's feature set.
A new product release would take a full day.
Besides Rust's compile time is actually fairly reasonable these days. Certainly not fast, but better than C++ and people have tolerated that for decades, so it's hardly a deal-breaker.
Yes. They're flawed. Everyone knows, but great detective work.
> Rust's compile time is actually fairly reasonable these days. Certainly not fast, but[…]
That's not reasonable.
Golang's compile times with the official toolchain are fast, despite the compiler being self-hosting and all the criticisms about the suboptimal code that its emitter produces. So with the official golang compiler being one such low-quality binary, by any reasonable measure, one should be able to expect the official Rust toolchain to be at least as fast. (Unless the explanation for that is as simple as that they just never give a shit about compile times. And I gotta say, I'm kind of getting the feeling that that might be the case. But it's still early days—Rust is a brand-new project after all—so maybe we should wait until it's at least a few years old before we come to any conclusions.)
And none of this addresses the demands on other resources, like memory—which was somehow deemed important somewhere near the root of this thread. (I guess that's not the case anymore, somehow.)
> That's not reasonable.
Most people think it is. You're in the minority there.
Oh yeah? Have you done a study on this?
Rust has managed to establish itself as a player, but it’s only the best choice for a limited amount of projects, like some (but not all) browser code or kernel code. Go, C++, C with Fil-C) have solid advantages of their own.
To name two:
* idiomatic code is easier to write in any of these languages compared to Rust, because one can shortcut thinking about ownership. Rust idiomatic code requires it.
* less effort needed to protect from supply-chain attacks
I have seen so must stuff copy and pasted into projects in my life, its not funny. Often it is undocumented where exactly the code comes from, which version it was taken from, how it was changed, and how to update it when something goes wrong.
When code is not copy and pasted it is over rewritten (poorly).
Code sharing does have its benefit. So does making it obvious which exact code is shared and how to update it. Yes, you can overdo code sharing, but just making code sharing hard on the tooling level does mote to hide supply chain security issues than it does to prevent the problem.
As my comment history reveals I am more on the camp of having rewrites in Go (regardless of my opinion on its design), Java, C#, Haskell, OCaml, Lisp, Scheme,... Also following experiments of Cedar, Oberon, Singularity, Interlisp-D, StarLisp,....
However you will never convince someone anti-automatic resource management from ideological point of view.
Now would someone like that embrace Fil-C, with its sandboxing and GC? Maybe not, unless pushed from management kind of decision.
They would probably rewrite in Rust, Zig, Odin,... if those are appealing to them, or be faced with OS vendors pushing hardware with SPARC ADI, CHERI, ARM MTE,... enabled.
It's generally accepted that 'explicit is better than implicit' and what you want in the end is deterministic, machine checked resource management. Automatic resource management is a subset of machine checked resource management. There is a large, somewhat less explored space of possibility (for example seL4 lives in this space) where you have to manually write the resource declarations and either the compiler or some other static analysis checks your work.
Even C has its implicit moments, with type conversions, signal handling, traps, setjmp/longjmp possibly hidden in libraries, thread handling across forks,
Fil-Qt: A Qt Base build with Fil-C experience (143 points, 3 months ago, 134 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46646080
Linux Sandboxes and Fil-C (343 points, 4 months ago, 156 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46259064
Ported freetype, fontconfig, harfbuzz, and graphite to Fil-C (67 points, 5 months ago, 56 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46090009
A Note on Fil-C (241 points, 5 months ago, 210 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45842494
Notes by djb on using Fil-C (365 points, 6 months ago, 246 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45788040
Fil-C: A memory-safe C implementation (283 points, 6 months ago, 135 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45735877
Fil's Unbelievable Garbage Collector (603 points, 7 months ago, 281 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45133938
Guaranteed memory safety at compile time is clearly the better approach when you care about programs that are both functionally correct and memory safe. If I'm writing something that takes untrusted user input like a web API memory safety issues still end up as denial-of-service vulns. That's better, but it's still not great.
Not to disparage the Fil-C work, but the runtime approach has limitations.
If it's guaranteed to crash, then it's memory-safe.
If you dislike that definition, then no mainstream language is memory-safe, since they all use crashes to handle out of bounds array accesses
Other languages have runtime exceptions on out-of-bounds access, Fil-C has unrecoverable crashes. This makes it pretty unsuitable to a lot of use cases. In Go or Java (arbitrary examples) I can write a web service full of unsafe out-of-bounds array reads, any exception/panic raised is scoped to the specific malformed request and doesn't affect the overall process. A design that's impossible in Fil-C.
I just don’t like that design. It’s a matter of taste
try-catch isn't a particularly complete solution either if you have any code outside of it (at the very least, the catch arm) or if data can get preserved across iterations that can easily get messed up if left half-updated (say, caches, poisoned mutexes, stuck-borrowed refcells) so you'll likely want a full restart to work well too, and might even prefer it sometimes.
(Also I think the commenter you're replying to just worded their comment innacurately, code that crashes instead of violating memory safety is memory safe, a compilation error would just have been more useful than a runtime crash in most cases)
It’s true that, assuming all things equal, compile-time checks are better than run-time. I love Rust. But Rust is only practical for a subset of correct programs. Rust is terrible for things like games where Rust simply can not prove at compile-time that usage is correct. And inability to prove correctness does NOT imply incorrectness.
I love Rust. I use it as much as I can. But it’s not the one true solution to all things.
But Rust provides both checked alternatives to indexed reads/writes (compile time safe returning Option<_>), and an exception recovery mechanism for out-of-bounds unsafe read/write. Fil-C only has one choice which is "crash immediately".
Programming languages have always been more about what they don't let you do rather than what they do - and where that lies on the spectrum of blocking "Possibly Valid" constructs vs "Possibly Invalid".
And inability to prove incorrectness does NOT imply correctness. I think most Rust users don't understand either, because of the hype.
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...
- Explicitly unsafe
- Runtime crash
- Runtime crash w/ compile time avoidence when possible
Catch the panic & unwind, safe program execution continues. Fundamentally impossible in Fil-C.
I also don't think it's that niche a use case. It's one encountered by every web server or web client (scope exception to single connection/request). Or anything involving batch processing, something like "extract the text from these 10k PDFs on disk".
Generally, I think one could want to recover from errors. But error recovery is something that needs to be designed in. You probably don't want to catch all errors, even in a loop handling requests for an application. If your application isn't designed to handle the same kinds of memory access issues as we're talking about here, the whole thing turns into non-existent-apples to non-existent-apples lol.
> All this "rewrite it in rust for safety" just sounds stupid when you can compile your C program completely memory safe.
All of the points about Rust were made in that context, and they've pushed back against it successfully enough that now you're trying to argue from the other side as if it disproves their point. No one here is saying that there's no point in having safer C code or that literally everything needs to get rewritten; they're just pointing out that yes, there is a concrete advantage that something in Rust has over something in C today even with Fil-C available.
As for your "as if it disproves their point" stuff is wrong. The fact is, the reply to a comment in a thread is not a reply to a different one. You are implicitly setting up a straw man like "See, you are saying there are NO advantages to using Rust over Fil-C" and I never said that at any point. I also didn't say that you said that there was no advantage to using Fil-C.
Oh so you're a psychic now too? I think all kinds of people read these threads. Most of them probably aren't as aware as you're claiming, even the ones actively commenting on the topic.
> "rewrite it in rust for safety" just sounds stupid
To be fair, Fil-C is quite a bit slower than Rust, and uses more memory.
On the other hand, Fil-C supports safe dynamic linking and is strictly safer than Rust.
It's a trade off, so do what you feel
ar->invisible_bytes = calloc(length, sizeof(AllocationRecord));I am the author of Fil-C
If you want to see my write-ups of how it works, start here: https://fil-c.org/how
When's the last time you told a C/C++ programmer you could add a garbage collector to their program, and saw their eyes light up?
And of course it's easy to think of lots of apps that heavily use those or another form of GC.
The GCC garbage collector GGC is only invoked explicitly. In contrast with many other garbage collectors, it is not implicitly invoked by allocation routines when a lot of memory has been consumed. [1]
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Invoking-the-garbage-c...
Most famously: Chrome does (Oilpan), GCC does (or did), Unreal does (for core game state heaps), I think WebKit also does.
- Me. I'm a C++ programmer.
- Any C++ programmer who has added a GC to their C++ program. (Like the programmers who used the web browser you're using right now.)
- Folks who are already using Fil-C.
My original foray into GCs was making real time ones, and the Fil-C GC is based on that work. I haven’t fully made it real time friendly (the few locks it has aren’t RT-friendly) but if I had more time I could make it give you hard guarantees.
It’s already full concurrent and on the fly, so it won’t pause you
Windows developers using COM, and WinRT, Apple developers using IO and Driver Kit.
Here's why:
1. For the first year of Fil-C development, I was doing it on a Mac, and it worked fine. I had lots of stuff running. No GUI in that version, though.
2. You could give Fil-C an FFI to Yolo-C. It would look sort of like the FFIs that Java, Python, or Ruby do. So, it would be a bit annoying to bridge to native APIs, but not infeasible. I've chosen not to give Fil-C such an FFI (except a very limited FFI to assembly for constant time crypto) because I wanted to force myself to port the underlying libraries to Fil-C.
3. Apple could do a Fil-C build of their userland, and MS could do a Fil-C build of their userland. Not saying they will do it. But the feasibility of this is "just" a matter of certain humans making choices, not anything technical.
Interesting, how costly would be hardware acceleration support for Fil-C code.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_R...
There is a startup working on "Object Memory Addressing" (OMA) with tracing GC in hardware [1], and its model seems to map quite well to Fil-C's. I have also seen a discussion on RISC-V's "sig-j" mailing list about possible hardware support for ZGC's pointer colours in upper pointer bits, so that it wouldn't have to occupy virtual memory bits — and space — for those.
However, I think that tagged pointers with reference counting GC could be a better choice for hardware acceleration than tracing GC. The biggest performance bottleneck with RC in software are the many atomic counter updates, and I think those could instead be done transparently in parallel by a dedicated hardware unit. Cycles would still have to be reclaimed by tracing but modern RC algorithms typically need to trace only small subsets of the object graph.
[1]: "Two Paths to Memory Safety: CHERI and OMA" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45566660
Fil-C just does the job with existing software in C or C++ without an expensive and bug riddled re-write and serves as a quick protection layer against the common memory corruption bugs found in those languages.
(And before someone says it: no you don't only have to verify the small amount of code in 'unsafe' blocks. Memory safety errors can be caused by the interaction of safe and unsafe code.)
For C and C++, we have to hope the static analysis tool actually found all possible spots.
Despite the way it is going on as a drama between WG21 and community, C++ might eventually get Ada style profiles in C++29, lets see how it plays out.
Then you also would have something to grep for, [[profile:...]]
C? Same business as usual.
The easiest way to see this is to note that ‘unsafe’ itself doesn’t have any semantics, so it can’t possibly allow anything to be proved that couldn’t have been proved otherwise.
Now if we go discussing formal verification in general, even something like Dafny or Lean may fail, if the proofs aren't correctly written for the deployment scenario.
Just like one may still die while wearing helmets, airbags, and security belts, yet the casualties amount is much worse without them.
There's a lot of mythology around Rust unsafe blocks. They're a useful lint, but they don't alter the fundamental safety properties of the language.
It was also adopted by several systems and application programming languages outside C geology, until C# came to be, which is probably the first curly brackets language with unsafe code blocks.
The first error naysayers make on the eyes of SecDevOps, thus losing credibility points, is to focus too much on Rust, and too little on history of secure systems.
The first fundamental rule is to reduce attack surface, on C, and C++ (until and if profiles come to be), it is all over the place.
I don't see folks that usually post on HN or Reddit going to buy Astrée licenses, or integrate Frama-C into their development process.
Then uses it as argument, that since Rust has unsafe, there is no benefit over using C or C++ with a plain static analysis tool, but a basic one, because they are unwilling to actually use the ones people pay for on high integrity computing certifications.
Your comment to me seemed a bit going towards that direction.
The commercial world of C and C++ is pretty much focused on binary libaries, and in many occasions access to source code is extra.
"simply" and "formal verification" are usually oxymorons, never mind "automatically"
If new code needs to be written, there is no reason to use Fil-C, since better languages with build-in security mechanisms exist.
I love Fil-C. It's underrated. Not the same niche as Rust or Ada.
Also filc isn’t just fat pointers.