4 ms·
Code written in Rust for LLM would likely be easier to review than C code due to its strong type system and the inclusion of the borrow checker. However, I anti
by WiSaGaN 3y ago
Code written in Rust for LLM would likely be easier to review than C code due to its strong type system and the inclusion of the borrow checker. However, I anticipate there might be more 'unsafe' code, especially at the language boundaries, compared to typical Rust application code. Thus, the benefits might be somewhat diminished.
- woooooo 3y agoThe whole point of being in kernel space is to write unsafe code -- either unsafe in a memory sense or in a "I am just blasting characters at this pcie port" sense.
- lucozade 3y agoYes and no. It's true that there's some portion of the kernel space code that can't be written provably safely. But there's good reason to believe that a lot of it can and that belief is what's driving this integration. Whether Rust in the kernel succeeds or not will likely be determined by whether or not a sufficiently clear boundary can be drawn between the bit that must be unsafe (in the Rust sense) and the rest. And how much code is in the latter. I don't think we know the answer yet but some knowledgable people are willing to run the experiment on the basis that the probability seems quite high that a safe subset can be determined.
- woooooo 3y agoSure but if everything you're doing can be done from userspace, then you should probably be in userspace. In the LLM case mentioned, having to hop a syscall every few teraflops is probably not a compelling reason to live in kernel space.