Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rust Developers Move Ahead With Preparing To Upstream More Code Into The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rust Developers Move Ahead With Preparing To Upstream More Code Into The Linux Kernel

    Phoronix: Rust Developers Move Ahead With Preparing To Upstream More Code Into The Linux Kernel

    With the upcoming Linux 6.1 kernel release there is the initial Rust infrastructure merged for enabling the use of the Rust programming language for future kernel drivers and other kernel code. But that state in Linux 6.1 is the very basics and not yet practical while now a secondary sent of "Rust for Linux" patches have been sent out for enabling more kernel development to happen with Rust...

    https://www.phoronix.com/news/More-R...eam-Prep-Linux

  • #2
    NSA suggesting Ruby is quite scary!
    I never liked Ruby, eww.

    I like Rust but would much prefer that the syntax used a single dot instead of this noisy double colon syntax.
    Also I find the module system confusing, I have to create a file with the same name as the directory to export files inside the directory.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      NSA suggesting Ruby is quite scary!
      I never liked Ruby, eww.
      NSA rightfully so is not looking at your personal syntax preferences which are of no importance to anyone else. Ruby is merely an example (C and C++ are counter examples) in the report if you read it. The broader reason for the recommendations is far more critical ie) Language that manage memory safely (either via garbage collection or language features) have a provably better track record of avoiding certain class of security issues and that is being recognized strongly by both the industry and various government bodies.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is turning into a saga, I wonder if the NSA will deem Carbon a "memory safe language" if it makes it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          NSA suggesting Ruby is quite scary!
          I like Rust but would much prefer that the syntax used a single dot instead of this noisy double colon syntax.
          Yay, lets spend 10 phoronix pages arguing about superficial concerns that are not going to change anyways.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

            NSA rightfully so is not looking at your personal syntax preferences which are of no importance to anyone else. Ruby is merely an example (C and C++ are counter examples) in the report if you read it. The broader reason for the recommendations is far more critical ie) Language that manage memory safely (either via garbage collection or language features) have a provably better track record of avoiding certain class of security issues and that is being recognized strongly by both the industry and various government bodies.
            The general direction of the recommendation is clear and understandable, but the choice of languages still strikes me as a bit weird. I don't get why Ruby is included but not Python and Javascript. Also, Go is not fully memory-safe, while the other languages are (to my knowledge) as long as you don't use unsafe features.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by archkde View Post

              The general direction of the recommendation is clear and understandable, but the choice of languages still strikes me as a bit weird. I don't get why Ruby is included but not Python and Javascript. Also, Go is not fully memory-safe, while the other languages are (to my knowledge) as long as you don't use unsafe features.
              It is a single almost throw away statement in the report:
              Some examples of memory safe languages are C#, Go, Java, Ruby™, and Swift®
              as opposite to C or C++ which are mentioned multiple times as not memory safe languages. I don't know why they included say Ruby but not Python or Javascript but clearly the focus is on the general idea of memory safety and the importance of it and not the specific examples.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by archkde View Post

                The general direction of the recommendation is clear and understandable, but the choice of languages still strikes me as a bit weird. I don't get why Ruby is included but not Python and Javascript. Also, Go is not fully memory-safe, while the other languages are (to my knowledge) as long as you don't use unsafe features.
                They just provided examples, not a conclusive full list.

                Comment


                • #9
                  enabling the use of the Rust programming language for future kernel drivers and other kernel code
                  Are you being intentionally inaccurate? Because afaik there is no "other kernel code". Rust will not be in the kernel at all, there are no plans for that currently.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

                    NSA rightfully so is not looking at your personal syntax preferences which are of no importance to anyone else. Ruby is merely an example (C and C++ are counter examples) in the report if you read it. The broader reason for the recommendations is far more critical ie) Language that manage memory safely (either via garbage collection or language features) have a provably better track record of avoiding certain class of security issues and that is being recognized strongly by both the industry and various government bodies.
                    Ruby is a terrible language for security despite being memory safe, not because of the terrible syntax, but because it is dynamically interpreted so it has poor handling of data types and null values.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X