4 ms·
I mostly agree, but I think I would have read the comment differently. I've seen C++ people have a strong distaste towards Rust for various reasons and don't ex
by green_on_black 4y ago
I mostly agree, but I think I would have read the comment differently. I've seen C++ people have a strong distaste towards Rust for various reasons and don't exactly care too much about the "memory safety" part. Which is... unfortunate. So while it might be "beating a dead horse", the horse isn't even dead.
- hardware2win 4y agoYou're right. People need to be aware how mem. safety affects security in critical software like Chromium or Microsoft's.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoIn fairness, a shitton of these issues would be solved by following C++ patterns like RAII, instead of the defer/gotos style the kernel seems to be proud of.
- kramerger 4y agoThis is kernel space, not userspace. Rusts memory safety is not a 100% protection here.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoRust's memory safety is never a 100% thing, but that is no argument, as long as it's a significant enough improvement...
- kramerger 4y agoLet me explain: in the kernel memory is not always simply "memory". Sometimes writing to a memory you own has huge side effects. And that part is not handled by rust.
- e2le 4y agoPerhaps instead we could train an ML model to find these use-after-free bugs?