> Consider that right now a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware, exactly because the Linux kernel has so many security issues and

> Consider that right now a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware, exactly because the Linux kernel has so many security issues and they're exposed to containers If you don't run docker as root, it's fairly ok for normal software. Kernel memory safety is not the main issue with container escapes. Even with memory safety, you can have logical bugs that result in privilege escalation scenarios. Is docker itself in Rust? Memory safety is not a magic bullet, the Linux kernel isn't exactly trivial to exploit either these days, although still not as hardened as windows (if you don't consider stuff like win32k.sys font parsing kernel space since NT is hybrid after all) in my humble opinion. > Linux had been built with safety in mind security would be a lot simpler I think it was, given the resources available in 1993. But if Trovalds caved in and allowed a mini-kernel or NT like hybrid design instead if hard-core monolithic unix, it would have been a game changer. In 1995, Ada was well accepted mainstream, it was memory safe and even Rust devs learned a lot from it. It just wasn't fun to use for the devs (on purpose, so devs were forced to do tedious stuff to prevent even non-memory bugs). But since it is developed by volunteers, they used what attracts the most volunteers. The main benefit of Rust is not it's safety but its popularity. Ada has been running on missiles, missile defense, subways, aircraft, etc... for a long time and it even has a formally verified subset (SPARK). In my opinion, even today Ada is a better suit technically for the kernel than Rust because it is time tested and version stable and it would open up the possibility easily formal-verifying parts of the kernel. Given how widely used Linux is, it would require a massive backing fund to pay devs to write something not so fun like Ada though.