While you're wondering why I keep claiming Go is a memory-safe language, you can also go ask the ISRG, which says the same thing I am at (checks notes) https://www.memorysafety.org/.
And yet Go violates the definition they give -- it doesn't prevent out-of-bounds accesses. (And just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm specifically talking about Go here. All the other languages on their list are actually memory safe, as far as I know.)
> you have to demonstrate a plausible scenario in realistic code where an attacker controls both the value and the address it's written to.
So your definition of memory safety includes some notion of "plausible" and "realistic"? Neither https://www.memorysafety.org/docs/memory-safety/ nor Wikipedia have such a qualification in their definition. It would help if you could just spell out your definition in full, rather than having us guess.
This is a strawman argument, you're arguing semantics here. You're a smart person, so you know exactly what he means. The perception created by your article is that people shouldn't use Go because it's not memory-safe. But the average developer hearing "not memory-safe" thinks of C/C++ level issues, with RCEs everywhere.
Unless you can show a realistic way this could be exploited for RCE in actual programs, you're just making noise. Further down the thread, you admit yourself that you're in a PLT research bubble and it shows.
Seriously, why are we bashing a researcher for being academic? This makes no fucking sense. Nobody claimed anywhere that people should stop using Go.
Uh, where exactly am I saying or implying that? I am, in fact, saying that Go is much closer to memory-safe languages than to C, safety-wise.
But I am arguing that the term "memory safe" should only be used for languages that actually went through the effort of thinking this problem through to the end and plugging all the holes through which memory safety violates can sneak in. Go is 99% there, but it's falling slightly short of the goal. I think that's a useful distinction, and I am disappointed that it is regularly swept under the rug, which is why I wrote this blog post. You are free to disagree, I never expected to convince everyone. But I think I gave some people some new food for thought, and that's all I can hope for.
Yes, semantics — what do things mean, exactly? — is the subject of the discussion here and is actually quite important in general.
I am honestly curious here. I am a PLT researcher so I am in a bubble where people use the term consistently with how I use it. You are the first person I meet (for some notion of "meet" ;) that uses the term differently. But without external sources it's hard to judge how wide-spread your definition (that you still haven't spelled out...) is.
> Memory safety is a property of some programming languages that prevents programmers from introducing certain types of bugs related to how memory is used. Since memory safety bugs are often security issues, memory safe languages are more secure than languages that are not memory safe.
That is the definition they give. Since Go does not "prevent programmers from introducing certain types of bugs related to how memory is used." it does not fall under this definition. They can list go as memory safe, but then either they disagree with their own definition or made the mistake of adding Go to that list. Memory safety is not a spectrum. You are either memory safe or unsafe. The spectrum is in the unsafety. Go is obviously less unsafe than C for example.
