3 ms·

You would have to sanitize your entire dependency tree for unsafe invocations and also demonstrate that valid rust programs do, in fact, guarantee memory safety

You would have to sanitize your entire dependency tree for unsafe invocations and also demonstrate that valid rust programs do, in fact, guarantee memory safety, which might be invalidated by previous or future compiler versions. That also ignores known soundness holes, compiler errors, and silliness like how rust binaries leak the file structure they were built on. I don’t see why that’s reasonable, but auto industry standards are not reasonable or a language with a garbage collector is not reasonable. The work happening in model checking is really incredible. Project Everest is focused on addressing exactly the same problems, and I don’t think the rust compilers guarantees have undergone nearly the rigor of that of F*.

Ericson2314 5y ago
> language with a garbage collector That is reasonable. Rust is not the only safe option. Re everything else....Rust should be seen as the beginning not the end. All those model checking and other "post-hoc" analyses come with major productivity pitfalls. (Wrestling with some solver that may or may not be happy for spooky reasons is profoundly disheartening compared to wrestling with something elegant and compositional like a type system. Just as there is the ML family of languages and then SML with CakeML, Rust should continue being a fast-moving target where the occasional mistake might happen, but there is academic work revolving around the language which should create a CompCert/CakeML with time. Some aviation/auto software regulation is a legit, but frankly a some of it doubles as regularity ossification the industry secretly like as it creates a mote around existing businesses that have "evolved" compliance from the get-go. In that case, unproductivity is a feature, not a bug. I would not hold it up as a realistic model for these sorts of projects to aspire to. Without drastic changes to the way we found unprofitable FOSS foundation infrastructure, whenever productivity and security are at odds, the former will win over the latter.
- grumblenum 5y ago
  Using a mode checker on existing software is unproductive, but rewriting existing, working software that you have to shoehorn into a shape rustc (which had a miscompilation bug until 1.52.1, has no specifications or alternative implementations, right?) will compile is productive? Rust’s type system is elegant, but Agda, OCaml F#, F* and Haskell, which are in a whole different league of sophistication, are not? Furthermore, I’m not aware of any progress in “sealed rust” or “rust belt” other than raising grant money. I don’t think a certification is coming anytime soon. There are other verified compilers that could be used now, though. This argument sounds like rust for rust’s sake.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    > Using a mode checker on existing software is unproductive, but rewriting existing, working software that you have to shoehorn into a shape rustc .... will compile is productive? The rewrite is a 1-time cost. > Rust’s type system is elegant, but Agda, OCaml F#, F* and Haskell, which are in a whole different league of sophistication, are not? I am primarily a Haskell user, and I already said I have nothing against GC. Those other languages (except for F#) are great! > has no specifications or alternative implementations That is a major downside (I work on GHC and wish it wasn't the only game in town) and affects all of those. That's why I put out SML and the CakeML implementation. SML lacks shiny new stuff but the grunt work has been done. I would certainly use SML over any variant of C for anything that needs dynamic allocation.
  - steveklabnik 5y ago
    > which had a miscompilation bug until 1.52.1, All compilers have miscompilation bugs. Even ones that are proven correct. > has no specifications or alternative implementations, right? There is one alternative implementation that is good enough to bitwise reproduce rustc, there are a few other in-progress alternate implementations. > I’m not aware of any progress in “sealed rust” or “rust belt” That doesn't mean they haven't progressed. By the way, "Sealed Rust" is now called "Ferrocene" and is expected to GA in late 2022. https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ > There are other verified compilers that could be used now, though. This is true, for sure. A compiler being verified is not a panacea.
    - grumblenum 5y ago
      A verified compiler is not panacea, but rust is because of unsubstantiated claims of its marketing professionals? This is total nonsense.
      - steveklabnik 5y ago
        Where did I say Rust is a panacea? A verified Rust compiler is a verified compiler, and wouldn’t be one either.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
Firstly, for any of the 4 projects that have been announced by Prossimo so far, a garbage collected language would be unsuitable as it would be rejected by almost all current users of the respective projects. Given that, as you correctly point out there are still lots of options that could be used; for example, Ada/SPARK has been around and freely available via GNAT for a long time. For example, here is a DNS server implemented in Ada/SPARK: http://ironsides.martincarlisle.com/ http://ironsides.martincarlisle.com/ Latest download is 5 years old - can you find a single instance of IRONSIDES running in the wild? IMHO the main advantage that Rust has over other approaches that would technically work to create sufficiently secure software is that it has much lower barriers to entry and a much larger community - the hardest part of getting a technology adopted is marketing, and Rust is currently the only option that can compete with C/C++ here. There is already some promising work on formalizing the semantics of Rust, see for example https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/popl18/ https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/popl18/ and https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/phd/thesis-screen.pdf https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/phd/thesis-screen.pdf
fsociety 5y ago
> That also ignores known soundness holes, compiler errors, and silliness like how rust binaries leak the file structure they were built on All these issues I've encountered, or heard of, while working on MISRA-compliant code which is expected to run in cars for years without updates. We make do with C, and extensive tests + ASAN/UBSAN/TSAN can take us a long way, but my point is that Rust is a nice incremental step compared to C. I'm not excluding F* from the list of nice incremental steps, and if the developer ecosystem is there maybe that is a compelling option. My other point is that MISRA C helps enforce standards in some of the nasty codebases that run in cars, and trust me they can be scary, but it is only a band-aid and I believe that Rust is generations ahead of it. > but auto industry standards are not reasonable or a language with a garbage collector is not reasonable. We avoided garbage collection because the run-time is harder to predict, and at the same time Java/Android is used a lot in the infotainment units which are now also running some safety-critical code - with a back-up computer thank you standards - and it makes it harder to allocate resources on the embedded system accordingly. I will admit I'm all for Rust and will likely try to seek out jobs which I get to use it in.

Ericson2314 5y ago

> language with a garbage collector That is reasonable. Rust is not the only safe option. Re everything else....Rust should be seen as the beginning not the end. All those model checking and other "post-hoc" analyses come with major productivity pitfalls. (Wrestling with some solver that may or may not be happy for spooky reasons is profoundly disheartening compared to wrestling with something elegant and compositional like a type system. Just as there is the ML family of languages and then SML with CakeML, Rust should continue being a fast-moving target where the occasional mistake might happen, but there is academic work revolving around the language which should create a CompCert/CakeML with time. Some aviation/auto software regulation is a legit, but frankly a some of it doubles as regularity ossification the industry secretly like as it creates a mote around existing businesses that have "evolved" compliance from the get-go. In that case, unproductivity is a feature, not a bug. I would not hold it up as a realistic model for these sorts of projects to aspire to. Without drastic changes to the way we found unprofitable FOSS foundation infrastructure, whenever productivity and security are at odds, the former will win over the latter.

grumblenum 5y ago
Using a mode checker on existing software is unproductive, but rewriting existing, working software that you have to shoehorn into a shape rustc (which had a miscompilation bug until 1.52.1, has no specifications or alternative implementations, right?) will compile is productive? Rust’s type system is elegant, but Agda, OCaml F#, F* and Haskell, which are in a whole different league of sophistication, are not? Furthermore, I’m not aware of any progress in “sealed rust” or “rust belt” other than raising grant money. I don’t think a certification is coming anytime soon. There are other verified compilers that could be used now, though. This argument sounds like rust for rust’s sake.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  > Using a mode checker on existing software is unproductive, but rewriting existing, working software that you have to shoehorn into a shape rustc .... will compile is productive? The rewrite is a 1-time cost. > Rust’s type system is elegant, but Agda, OCaml F#, F* and Haskell, which are in a whole different league of sophistication, are not? I am primarily a Haskell user, and I already said I have nothing against GC. Those other languages (except for F#) are great! > has no specifications or alternative implementations That is a major downside (I work on GHC and wish it wasn't the only game in town) and affects all of those. That's why I put out SML and the CakeML implementation. SML lacks shiny new stuff but the grunt work has been done. I would certainly use SML over any variant of C for anything that needs dynamic allocation.
- steveklabnik 5y ago
  > which had a miscompilation bug until 1.52.1, All compilers have miscompilation bugs. Even ones that are proven correct. > has no specifications or alternative implementations, right? There is one alternative implementation that is good enough to bitwise reproduce rustc, there are a few other in-progress alternate implementations. > I’m not aware of any progress in “sealed rust” or “rust belt” That doesn't mean they haven't progressed. By the way, "Sealed Rust" is now called "Ferrocene" and is expected to GA in late 2022. https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ > There are other verified compilers that could be used now, though. This is true, for sure. A compiler being verified is not a panacea.
  - grumblenum 5y ago
    A verified compiler is not panacea, but rust is because of unsubstantiated claims of its marketing professionals? This is total nonsense.
    - steveklabnik 5y ago
      Where did I say Rust is a panacea? A verified Rust compiler is a verified compiler, and wouldn’t be one either.

the_why_of_y 5y ago

Firstly, for any of the 4 projects that have been announced by Prossimo so far, a garbage collected language would be unsuitable as it would be rejected by almost all current users of the respective projects. Given that, as you correctly point out there are still lots of options that could be used; for example, Ada/SPARK has been around and freely available via GNAT for a long time. For example, here is a DNS server implemented in Ada/SPARK: http://ironsides.martincarlisle.com/ http://ironsides.martincarlisle.com/ Latest download is 5 years old - can you find a single instance of IRONSIDES running in the wild? IMHO the main advantage that Rust has over other approaches that would technically work to create sufficiently secure software is that it has much lower barriers to entry and a much larger community - the hardest part of getting a technology adopted is marketing, and Rust is currently the only option that can compete with C/C++ here. There is already some promising work on formalizing the semantics of Rust, see for example https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/popl18/ https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/popl18/ and https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/phd/thesis-screen.pdf https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/phd/thesis-screen.pdf

fsociety 5y ago

> That also ignores known soundness holes, compiler errors, and silliness like how rust binaries leak the file structure they were built on All these issues I've encountered, or heard of, while working on MISRA-compliant code which is expected to run in cars for years without updates. We make do with C, and extensive tests + ASAN/UBSAN/TSAN can take us a long way, but my point is that Rust is a nice incremental step compared to C. I'm not excluding F* from the list of nice incremental steps, and if the developer ecosystem is there maybe that is a compelling option. My other point is that MISRA C helps enforce standards in some of the nasty codebases that run in cars, and trust me they can be scary, but it is only a band-aid and I believe that Rust is generations ahead of it. > but auto industry standards are not reasonable or a language with a garbage collector is not reasonable. We avoided garbage collection because the run-time is harder to predict, and at the same time Java/Android is used a lot in the infotainment units which are now also running some safety-critical code - with a back-up computer thank you standards - and it makes it harder to allocate resources on the embedded system accordingly. I will admit I'm all for Rust and will likely try to seek out jobs which I get to use it in.