> I'm not even sure that a memory safe language could have prevented this; this is a rare case where you actively want to avoid the overflow check.
This component should be written in WUFFS. If you were correct, that the bounds check isn't needed that's fine, WUFFS doesn't emit runtime bounds checks. If, as was the case here, the software is wrong because it has a bounds miss, that won't compile in WUFFS.
You might be thinking, "That's impossible" and if WUFFS was a general purpose programming language you'd be correct. Rice's Theorem, non-trivial semantic properties are Undecidable. Fortunately WUFFS isn't a general purpose language. The vast majority of software can't be written with WUFFS. But you can write image codecs.
This component should be written in WUFFS. If you were correct, that the bounds check isn't needed that's fine, WUFFS doesn't emit runtime bounds checks. If, as was the case here, the software is wrong because it has a bounds miss, that won't compile in WUFFS.
You might be thinking, "That's impossible" and if WUFFS was a general purpose programming language you'd be correct. Rice's Theorem, non-trivial semantic properties are Undecidable. Fortunately WUFFS isn't a general purpose language. The vast majority of software can't be written with WUFFS. But you can write image codecs.