4 ms·

And yet, Rust is the exact opposite. Why try to make the two meet? The argument for Rust in the kernel over memory safety can be remediated by better memory saf

by rc00 2y ago

And yet, Rust is the exact opposite. Why try to make the two meet? The argument for Rust in the kernel over memory safety can be remediated by better memory safety tools for C can't it? (Not that the Linux kernel project doesn't have any already.) Why not devote the time to writing a better memory safety tool for the Linux kernel (or C in general) rather than keep trying to force two disparate cultures and ideologies to meet in some fantasy middle? ThePrimeagen actually had an interesting opinion on this recently too, worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62oTu9hjxL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62oTu9hjxL4

steveklabnik 2y ago
Rust has the very strong pro of already existing. If those tools existed, I’m sure the conversation would be quite different. It’s also not just about memory safety. Greg in particular has recognized how Rust’s type system will be helpful for preventing other kinds of bugs, for example.
- rc00 2y ago
  > Rust has the very strong pro of already existing But not in the Linux kernel. Any new effort will be greenfield, why spend the last two years and many more rallying around an entirely different programming language instead of writing a novel tool? > Greg in particular has recognized how Rust’s type system will be helpful for preventing other kinds of bugs Do you have any examples here?
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    > But not in the Linux kernel. Sure, it is still an experiment, but that's irrelevant: your theoretical "make C memory safe" tooling does not exist and does not exist in the kernel. > instead of writing a novel tool? Do you have a proposed design for the novel tool? Many have tried, nobody has succeeded. > Do you have any examples here? From the article: > Kroah-Hartman said that it could eliminate entire classes of bugs in the kernel. He's said similar things elsewhere: https://social.kernel.org/notice/AlxbVeMxyJNsLoNa6q https://social.kernel.org/notice/AlxbVeMxyJNsLoNa6q
rowanG077 2y ago
There are no decent memory safety tools for C. Could they be theoretically created? Perhaps, I doubt it considering the amount of money flowing in this industry. To solve it you really have to design a new language. Which is exactly what happened it's called Rust. Kernel devs should just put on their big boy pants and go with the times. C is simply not the right tool for the job anymore for a lot/most kernel work.
FuckButtons 2y ago
Why, because of the cost of exploited vulnerabilities and critical systems failures that could have been avoided.

by rc00 2y ago

steveklabnik 2y ago

Rust has the very strong pro of already existing. If those tools existed, I’m sure the conversation would be quite different. It’s also not just about memory safety. Greg in particular has recognized how Rust’s type system will be helpful for preventing other kinds of bugs, for example.

rc00 2y ago
> Rust has the very strong pro of already existing But not in the Linux kernel. Any new effort will be greenfield, why spend the last two years and many more rallying around an entirely different programming language instead of writing a novel tool? > Greg in particular has recognized how Rust’s type system will be helpful for preventing other kinds of bugs Do you have any examples here?
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  > But not in the Linux kernel. Sure, it is still an experiment, but that's irrelevant: your theoretical "make C memory safe" tooling does not exist and does not exist in the kernel. > instead of writing a novel tool? Do you have a proposed design for the novel tool? Many have tried, nobody has succeeded. > Do you have any examples here? From the article: > Kroah-Hartman said that it could eliminate entire classes of bugs in the kernel. He's said similar things elsewhere: https://social.kernel.org/notice/AlxbVeMxyJNsLoNa6q https://social.kernel.org/notice/AlxbVeMxyJNsLoNa6q

rowanG077 2y ago

There are no decent memory safety tools for C. Could they be theoretically created? Perhaps, I doubt it considering the amount of money flowing in this industry. To solve it you really have to design a new language. Which is exactly what happened it's called Rust. Kernel devs should just put on their big boy pants and go with the times. C is simply not the right tool for the job anymore for a lot/most kernel work.

FuckButtons 2y ago

Why, because of the cost of exploited vulnerabilities and critical systems failures that could have been avoided.