[wat10000]

What a terrifying statement.

Edit: to be less glib, this is like saying “our shred-o-matic is perfectly safe due to its robust and thoroughly tested off switch.” An off switch is essential but not nearly enough. It only provides acceptable safety if the operator is perfect, and people are not. You need guards and safety interlocks that ensure, for example, that the machine can’t be turned on while Bob is inside lubricating the bearings.

Mutexes and smart pointers are important constructs but they don’t provide safety. Safety isn’t the presence of safe constructs, but the absence of unsafe ones. Smart pointers don’t save you when you manage to escape a reference beyond the lifetime of the object because C++ encourages passing parameters by reference all over the place. Mutexes and semaphores don’t save you from failing to realize that some shared state can be mutated on two threads simultaneously. And none of this saves you from indexing off the end of a vector.

You can probably pick a subset of C++ that lets you write reasonably safe code. But the presence of semaphores, mutexes, and shared pointers isn’t what does it.

Source: also writing C and C++ for 30 years.

[FpUser]

>"What a terrifying statement."

The statement may not be correct but calling it terrifying is way melodramatic.

[wat10000]

I don’t think so. The fact that someone with extensive experience thinks modern C++ is safe because it has semaphores and mutexes and smart pointers is legitimately scary. It’s not merely wrong, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the problem even is. It’s like an engineer designing airliners saying that they can be perfectly safe without any redundant systems because they have good wheels. That should have you backing away slowly while asking which manufacturer they work for.

[FpUser]

I think their statement amounts to something like in line of: subset of modern C++ and feature usage patterns can be reasonably safe and I am ok with it. Nothing is ever really safe of course. One should consider trade offs of quality / safety vs costs and make their own conclusion on where to lean more and where enough is enough.

[wat10000]

There's an argument to be made that you can write safe C++ by using the right subset of the modern language. It might even be a decent argument. But that's not the argument that was made here. They mentioned two things that have only the most tangential connection to security and that aren't even part of C++, plus one C++ feature that solves exactly one problem.

[lisper]

> Safety isn’t the presence of safe constructs, but the absence of unsafe ones.

Exactly. Here is a data point: https://spinroot.com/spin/Doc/rax.pdf

Tl;DR: This was software that ran on a spacecraft. Specifically designed to be safe, formally analyzed, and tested out the wazoo, but nonetheless failed in flight because someone did an end-run around the safe constructs to get something to work, which ended up producing a race condition.