Turns out the status quo of Linux memory management somehow works pretty damn okay, nobody seems to really know why, and nobody cares.

  • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I understand. Safety and stability of embedded software is clearly overrated.

    Why learn about stack overflow. Tomorrow some kid will press the “open” button on your device, will get rejected 64 times, and on the 65th the locking mechanism will crash. Makes sense to me.

    • LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Get a nice cup of tea and calm down. I literally never said or implied any of that. Why do you feel that you need to personally attack me in particular?

      All I said was that a supposedly easy topic turned into reading a lot of obscure code and papers which weren’t really my field at the time.

      For the record, I am well aware that the state of embedded system security is an absolute joke and I’m waiting for the day when it all finally halts and catches fire.

      But that was just not the topic of this work. My work was efficient memory management under a lot of (specific) constraints, not memory safety.

      Also, the root problem is NP-hard, so good luck finding a universal solution that works within real-life resource (chip space, power, price…) limits.