cqwrteur (euloanty.delete@this.live.com) on July 9, 2021 9:56 pm wrote:
> I just read the upcoming Rust code for Linux Kernel from Github. Maybe I am stupid.

1) Why do you posts specific complaints about the Linux source code on RWT? If I'm the maintainer of an open source project and some opaque nickname posts complaints + a personal attack on an unrelated Web forum, I'm unlikely to be very receptive.

2) If you are looking for insight, did you try asking the authors of the code? Or the maintainers who approved it? Or simply posting on a relevant message board or mailing-list, so that the experts can read and answer your questions?

3) I'm not a Rust expert (however I know quite a bit of C and C++), but arguing that Rust isn't useful because some functions are marked "unsafe" sounds nevertheless ridiculous. Much C and C++ code is inherentely "unsafe", even if the word appears nowhere in the code. The fact that Rust makes you mark which precise operations are unsafe is already a step forward for maintainability. Also, it is an incentive to gradually reduce the amount of unsafe operations.

Note that secluding "unsafe" code in small dedicated regions of code is also good practice in C++, for example, but the language doesn't really push you do that, unlike Rust (for example, your dedicated allocator may be "unsafe" but using it in shared_ptr and friends will still benefit from the usual "safety" properties).

> Some Rust people like Alex Gaynor who actively push Rust into kernel
> look crazy for me.

And you look like someone who insults the person they disagree with.

> Maybe Linus Torvalds also agrees using C and C++ violates human rights like those Rust people believe?

That's not what the excerpt you posted *precisely* says...

If you want to dispute the fact that some vulnerabilities can have dire consequences (such as risking people's lives, in some situations), feel free to do so.

And, yes, you may point out that not all vulnerabilities would be avoided by using Rust, and that would be a good point in its own right; but that does not look like a sufficient reason to avoid making things better.