[pluto_modadic]

cool... what does this mean the best linter / correctness checking is at the moment?

I have some code that eventually core dumps and honestly I don't know what I'm doing wrong, and neither do any golang tools I've tried :(

maaaaaybe there's something that'll check that your code never closes a channel or always blocks after a specific order of events happens...

[mseepgood]

I don't think a pure Go program can core dump, unless you use Cgo (wrongly) or unsafe. It can only panic.

[yencabulator]

Races between goroutines can corrupt memory. E.g. manipulate a map from two goroutines and you can wreck its internal state.

[mutatio]

Can this actually manifest? Even without the -race flag I think maps are a special case which will panic with a concurrent mutation error if access isn't synchronized.

[masklinn]

> Can this actually manifest?

Yes. Per rsc (https://research.swtch.com/gorace)

> In the current Go implementations, though, there are two ways to break through these safety mechanisms. The first and more direct way is to use package unsafe, specifically unsafe.Pointer. The second, less direct way is to use a data race in a multithreaded program.

That races undermine memory safety in go has been used in CTFs: https://github.com/netanel01/ctf-writeups/blob/master/google...

These are not idle fancies, there are lots of ways to unwittingly get data races in go: https://www.uber.com/blog/data-race-patterns-in-go.

[tialaramex]

It's interesting that the 2010 article you linked suggests they might consider improving this but nope, Go 1.0 and the Go people use today just basically takes the same attitude as C and C++ albeit with a small nuance.

In C and C++ SC/DRF (Sequentially Consistent if Data Race Free) turns into "All data races are Undefined Behaviour, game over, you lose". In Go SC/DRF turns into "All data races on complex types are Undefined Behaviour, game over, you lose". If you race e.g. a simple integer counter, it's damaged and you ought not to use it because it might be anything now, but Go isn't reduced to Undefined Behaviour immediately for this seemingly trivial mishap (whereas C and C++ are)

[yencabulator]

Go doesn't go out of its way to make weird things happen on UB like C compilers these days tend to, but once you corrupt the map data structure, weird things can happen. Trying to contain that explosion isn't necessarily "better", as it would make maps slower / take up more memory / etc.

[vore]

Kind of ironic the raison d'être of Go is a memory safe language for concurrent programming but you can easily footgun yourself into doing something memory unsafe using concurrency...

[65a]

Go generaly doesn't used shared memory and concurrency, or at least it's been considered an anti-pattern: https://go.dev/blog/codelab-share

[tptacek]

This is a CTF challenge where attackers control the code that's running, isn't it?

[yencabulator]

Another example: thread A toggles an interface variable between two types, thread B calls a method on it. You can get the method of type X called with a receiver of type Y.

[tgv]

I've had that, and it did panic.

[adonovan]

There are ways a Go program can fatal: by running out of heap, or stack, by corrupting variables by racing writes, by deadlocking, by misuse of reflect or unsafe, and so on.

[DominoTree]

I’ve seen it happen before because the stdlib actually directly just makes POSIX syscalls for a lot of things by default instead of using the native Go implementations and so you’re implicitly reliant on C code