6 ms·
> Oh wait, doesn't this invalidate your argument? Not really. If you can't be perfect, at least be good. Unless you want to make an argument that searching a
by Ygg2 1y ago
> Oh wait, doesn't this invalidate your argument?
Not really. If you can't be perfect, at least be good.
Unless you want to make an argument that searching all of your code base for UB is better than running on a relatively small subset (20-30%).
Or that Linux should use tracing GC + value types. Which I would find decent as well. But sadly LKML would probably disagree with inclusion of C# (or Java 35).
- eru 1y agoIf you really want, you could write your code in Agda or similar and prove it correct. See also seL4 https://github.com/seL4/seL4 https://github.com/seL4/seL4 which is a proven correct kernel. https://sel4.systems/Verification/proofs.html https://sel4.systems/Verification/proofs.html
- uecker 1y ago... written in C.
- eru 1y agoIt's written in C in the same way it's written in assembly: C is just used as part of the process to go from a high level spec to executable code. You can also compile eg Haskell via C. The subset of C used in seL4 is highly constrained.
- immibis 1y agoProven correct C
- johnnyjeans 1y agoa subset of C is provable, and is the de-facto standard in the industry. what is it with rust people and thinking robust, automatic correctness checking was invented in the last 20 years?
- Ygg2 1y agoWow, the Linux kernel must be full of dunces that rather than writing in proven correct C, added another language that other maintainers hate. What morons! /sarcasm Disclaimer: above is sarcasm, while I don't think Linux Kernel Maintainers are perfect, I don't consider them dunces either. If they can't avoid writing UAF (use after free) or DF (Double free) bugs then what hope does the average C programmer has?
- uecker 1y agoWhile the memory safety issues are a concern, switching to Rust + Unsafe will only reduce but not eliminate those issues and it is unclear whether adding a lot of complexity is actually worth it compared to other efforts to improve memory safety in C.
- Ygg2 1y ago> switching to Rust + Unsafe will only reduce but not eliminate those issues Except in practice the code written in Rust experiences no safety issues[1]. I've seen this argument before a million times it is one part FUD (by making actual memory issues bigger than they are) one part Nirvana fallacy (argments that make so Java isn't memory safe because it will have to call into C). [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/7665.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubto... > is actually worth it compared to other efforts to improve memory safety in C As I aluded before, I am sure Linux Kernel Maintainers are aware of sel4. Which begs the question, why they didn't do it? It's in C, proves everything, and solves even more than Rust, why isn't it in kernel? I'm going to hazard a guess, the effort of going full proof for something like Linux would be through the roof. You would need lifetime of LKML dedication.
- uecker 1y agoSoftware written in Rust also experiences safety issues. If you believe otherwise, you are delusional. In the end, if you want extremely safe software there is no other way than formal verification. (and then there can still hardware be issues or bugs in the specification)
- uecker 1y agoYou can't be perfect. The question is how much improvement "rewriting in Rust" actually brings, how important that is, and what downsides it may have.
- throwawayqqq11 1y agoAnother, way more impertant question is, can we keep maintaining legacy C code in community driven FOSS projects, when the world moves on.
- uecker 1y agoDoes the world really move on? I think HN could be misleading here. And is moving to evermore complex solution the right answer to mainentance problems? I doubt it.