This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
| Official | https:// |
| Support this service | https://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup |
akoboldfrying
- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 2 Posts
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
What I mean is: There will be bugs* in that pure Go implementation, and static linking means you're baking them in forever. Why is this preferable to dynamic linking?
* It's likely that C implementations will have bugs related to dynamic memory allocation that are absent from the Go implementation, because Go is GCed while C is not. But it would be very surprising if there were no bugs at all in the Go implementation.
Why would statically linking a library reduce the number of vulnerabilities in it?
AFAICT, static linking just means the set of vulnerabilities you get landed with won't change over time.