X-Git-Url: https://git.ralfj.de/web.git/blobdiff_plain/ebe98317dd54b78c4ea65cc3ecc7d8aae528a4e0..6f4875da5761e6771ee37fcf39527900b8689968:/personal/_posts/2025-07-24-memory-safety.md?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/personal/_posts/2025-07-24-memory-safety.md b/personal/_posts/2025-07-24-memory-safety.md
index f940453..ad38e76 100644
--- a/personal/_posts/2025-07-24-memory-safety.md
+++ b/personal/_posts/2025-07-24-memory-safety.md
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ Every time `repeat_swap` stores a new value in `globalVar`, it just does two sep
 In `repeat_get`, there's thus a small chance that when we read `globalVar` *in between* those two stores, we get a mix of a pointer to an `Int` with the vtable for a `Ptr`.
 When that happens, we will run the `Ptr` version of `get`, which will dereference the `Int`'s `val` field as a pointer -- and hence the program accesses address 42, and crashes.
 
-One could easily turn this example into a function that just casts an arbitrary integer to a pointer.
+One could easily turn this example into a function that casts an integer to a pointer, and then cause arbitrary memory corruption.
 
 ## What about other languages?
 
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ In that sense, all Java programs are thread-safe.[^java-safe]
 [^java-safe]: Java programmers will sometimes use the terms "thread safe" and "memory safe" differently than C++ or Rust programmers would. From a Rust perspective, Java programs are memory- and thread-safe by construction. Java programmers take that so much for granted that they use the same term to refer to stronger properties, such as not having "unintended" data races or not having null pointer exceptions. However, such bugs cannot cause segfaults from invalid pointer uses, so these kinds of issues are qualitatively very different from the memory safety violation in my Go example. For the purpose of this blog post, I am using the low-level Rust and C++ meaning of these terms.
 
 Generally, there are two options a language can pursue to ensure that concurrency does not break basic invariants:
-- Ensure that arbitrary concurrent programs actually behave "reasonably" in some sense. This comes at a significant cost, restricting the language to never assume consistency of multi-word values and limiting which optimizations the compiler can perform. This is the route most languages take, from Java to C#, OCaml, JavaScript, and WebAssembly.[^multi-word]
+- Ensure that arbitrary concurrent programs still uphold the typing discipline and key language invariants. This comes at a significant cost, restricting the language to never assume consistency of multi-word values and limiting which optimizations the compiler can perform. This is the route most languages take, from Java to C#, OCaml, JavaScript, and WebAssembly.[^multi-word]
 - Have a strong enough type system to fully rule out data races on most accesses, and pay the cost of having to safely deal with races for only a small subset of memory accesses. This is the approach that Rust first brought into practice, and that Swift is now also adopting with their ["strict concurrency"](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/adoptingswift6).
 
 [^multi-word]: Some hardware supports larger-than-pointer-sized atomic accesses, which could be used to ensure consistency of multi-word values. However, Go slices are three pointers large, and as far as I know no hardware supports atomic accesses which are *that* big.
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ I think that is a problematic blind spot.
 Of course, as all things in language design, in the end this is a trade-off.
 Go made the simplest possible choice here, which is entirely in line with the general design of the language.
 There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.
-However, putting Go into the same bucket as languages that actually *did* go through the effort of solving the problem with data races misrepresents the safety promises of the language.
+However, putting Go into the [same bucket](https://www.memorysafety.org/docs/memory-safety/) as languages that actually *did* go through the effort of solving the problem with data races misrepresents the safety promises of the language.
 The [Go memory model documentation](https://go.dev/ref/mem) is not exactly upfront about this point either: the "Informal Overview" emphasizes that "most races have a limited number of outcomes" and remarks that Go is unlike "C and C++, where the meaning of any program with a race is entirely undefined".
 You could say that the use of "most" here is foreshadowing, but this section does not list any cases where the number of outcomes is unlimited, so this is easy to miss.
 They even go so far as to claim that Go is "more like Java or JavaScript", which I think is rather unfair, given the lengths to which those languages went to achieve the thread safety they have.