It's true that every layer of the stack needs every layer below it to take security seriously. But that's not an argument against hardening languages, because they're also a part of the stack that upper layers rely on upon.
I dont disagree with this.
I just want to highlight that to do this sort of sandboxing in any systematic manner, you’ll always need to go down at the system level.
Because here we’re trying to sandbox the system using abstraction at the language level which is bound to run into impedance mismatch. I don’t think it’s the role of the language to restrict which system calls are acceptable.
However, there is some appeal to the syntax introduced by the author if we use it for a proper and portable sandboxing mechanism.
Maybe WASI, with capabilities?
To be more specific, there’s no reason for rust to know that writing to a specific file will allow modifying the program’s memory. It’s also not a security problem from the system, it’s just how it works. It really only makes sense for the system to enforce that kind of sandboxing, because it has enough context to enforce things sensibly.
