4 ms·
On a tangent re: memory safety in operating systems — We hear a lot these days from the (very much in-the-open) debate over how much (if any) of the Linux kern
by derefr 2y ago
On a tangent re: memory safety in operating systems —
We hear a lot these days from the (very much in-the-open) debate over how much (if any) of the Linux kernel should be rewritten in Rust for memory safety.
But does anyone know if a similar debate is also going on inside Apple re: XNU/Darwin, or within Microsoft re: NTOS? (Maybe not using Rust in particular, but some other memory-safe systems language?)
- jeroenhd 2y agoMicrosoft is hard at work rewriting risky C code into Rust (old presentation mentioned here: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/new-windows-11-build-ships-with-more-rust-based-kernel-features/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/new-windows-...). They're also actively working on things like their Rust framework for Windows drivers. I don't know about Apple. I'd expect them to go for Swift rather than Rust, but Darwin doesn't seem to include any such code yet. Linux is full of C developers who don't want anything to do with Rust actively working against the current Rust for Linux experiment. I expect Linux to end up lagging behind Apple and Microsoft in this area because of the difference in organisational structure and priorities.
- dagmx 2y agoApple have both a memory safe dialect of C (called firebloom) and are working on making a subset of Swift for safe, embedded use. Idk if the xnu kernel will adopt those but it seems most likely.