text stringlengths 0 2.35k |
|---|
[2006.60 --> 2008.30] or do a calculation return |
[2008.30 --> 2009.26] and then on top of that, |
[2009.58 --> 2010.86] that all makes sense. |
[2011.40 --> 2013.54] Do commands just pop up randomly |
[2013.54 --> 2015.32] in what's happening now |
[2015.32 --> 2017.60] and you kind of try to paint that |
[2017.60 --> 2018.74] in the relevant context |
[2018.74 --> 2020.18] once you're reverse engineering |
[2020.18 --> 2022.20] something with multi-threads? |
[2022.20 --> 2023.78] Actually, I think the best way |
[2023.78 --> 2024.62] to visualize it |
[2024.62 --> 2026.42] is not to try to think about the program |
[2026.42 --> 2027.14] as it is running, |
[2027.26 --> 2030.50] but imagine that instead of reading assembly code, |
[2030.58 --> 2032.06] you are reading the source code |
[2032.06 --> 2032.96] of a Go program. |
[2033.42 --> 2036.10] I think you are not going to dispute the fact |
[2036.10 --> 2038.90] that if you receive some Go project |
[2038.90 --> 2040.58] from a friend or a coworker |
[2040.58 --> 2042.30] and you know nothing about this project |
[2042.30 --> 2044.26] and you have to read this source code, |
[2044.68 --> 2045.86] then this source code is going to be |
[2045.86 --> 2047.12] much easier to understand |
[2047.12 --> 2050.46] if the program is just a single thread |
[2050.46 --> 2052.02] that is doing a single thing, right? |
[2052.16 --> 2053.58] If you receive this program |
[2053.58 --> 2055.10] that as soon as it begins, |
[2055.16 --> 2056.66] it launches three different threads |
[2056.66 --> 2058.50] that are supposed to do different things |
[2058.50 --> 2059.32] at the same time |
[2059.32 --> 2061.34] and figuring out exactly |
[2061.34 --> 2063.60] what the program is going to be doing |
[2063.60 --> 2064.76] is going to be, I think, |
[2064.80 --> 2065.60] much more difficult. |
[2066.48 --> 2068.20] Now, imagine the same thing, |
[2068.32 --> 2070.96] but instead of receiving proper Go code, |
[2071.36 --> 2073.02] then you would receive Go code |
[2073.02 --> 2075.12] where all the variable names have been wiped |
[2075.12 --> 2076.30] and all the variables are named |
[2076.30 --> 2077.56] A, B and C, et cetera. |
[2077.66 --> 2079.60] So you cannot even use the function names |
[2079.60 --> 2081.16] or you cannot even use the variable names |
[2081.16 --> 2082.98] to try to understand |
[2082.98 --> 2084.44] what the program is supposed to do. |
[2084.66 --> 2086.18] Imagine that you have no comments |
[2086.18 --> 2087.24] inside the code as well. |
[2087.68 --> 2089.68] This is basically what reverse engineers have. |
[2089.68 --> 2091.18] You don't always have to imagine that. |
[2091.46 --> 2092.14] Yeah, of course. |
[2092.98 --> 2094.90] Yeah, this might be real life |
[2094.90 --> 2096.44] for a lot of people out there. |
[2097.00 --> 2097.96] Shout out to them, I guess. |
[2098.26 --> 2101.48] But this is exactly what reverse engineering is. |
[2101.66 --> 2102.86] Like you receive some source code, |
[2103.04 --> 2104.78] whether it is assembly or high-level. |
[2105.26 --> 2106.20] A high-level code is, |
[2106.60 --> 2107.52] that does a bit of difference |
[2107.52 --> 2109.00] because assembly is hard to read. |
[2109.06 --> 2109.56] But basically, |
[2110.28 --> 2111.38] it's going to be the same thing |
[2111.38 --> 2112.40] that you have to go through, right? |
[2112.44 --> 2113.30] You receive some code, |
[2113.52 --> 2114.88] you have to understand what it does. |
[2115.34 --> 2117.66] And the more complex this code is, |
[2117.80 --> 2120.00] the more sophisticated its operations are, |
[2120.08 --> 2121.72] then the harder time you're going to have |
[2121.72 --> 2123.96] to understand exactly what is going on in there. |
[2124.48 --> 2126.26] To this, it brings me to the next question |
[2126.26 --> 2129.96] that generally Go best practice, let's say, |
[2130.16 --> 2132.66] or like the right way to do Go |
[2132.66 --> 2135.08] is to write simple, readable code |
[2135.08 --> 2136.82] rather than sophisticated |
[2136.82 --> 2139.00] and like trinary operations and whatnot |
[2139.00 --> 2141.38] and complicated things. |
[2141.64 --> 2144.86] Does this in any way help or not? |
[2145.22 --> 2146.14] I wish, |
[2146.30 --> 2148.98] but it turns out that for the compiler, |
[2149.30 --> 2151.30] whether you write the simple way |
[2151.30 --> 2152.68] or the trinary operation, |
[2152.90 --> 2154.20] if the compiler is smart enough, |
[2154.26 --> 2155.06] then at the end of the day, |
[2155.06 --> 2155.98] it's going to generate |
[2155.98 --> 2157.88] the very same assembly construct. |
[2157.88 --> 2160.30] Hopefully, the compiler, |
[2160.56 --> 2162.84] if you do this, if, then, else, |
[2163.32 --> 2165.30] or if you use the trinary operator, |
[2165.98 --> 2167.18] it's going to be able to recognize |
[2167.18 --> 2168.06] that it's the same thing |
[2168.06 --> 2168.52] and in the end, |
[2168.58 --> 2169.66] it's going to generate assembly |
[2169.66 --> 2170.94] that does exactly the same. |
[2171.08 --> 2172.56] So it's a good thing |
[2172.56 --> 2175.18] as far as development practices are concerned. |
[2175.58 --> 2178.06] But when you reach the assembly level, |
[2178.26 --> 2180.52] then all those helpful things |
[2180.52 --> 2181.44] and all those precautions |
[2181.44 --> 2182.36] that you have taken |
[2182.36 --> 2184.02] to make sure that other people |
[2184.02 --> 2185.98] will be able to understand |
[2185.98 --> 2186.60] what you are doing, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.