Rayla (rayla.delete@this.example.com) on July 10, 2021 5:33 pm wrote:
> cqwrteur (euloanty.delete@this.live.com) on July 10, 2021 4:41 pm wrote:
> > Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 10, 2021 3:56 pm wrote:
> > > cqwrteur (euloanty.delete@this.live.com) on July 10, 2021 1:32 pm wrote:
> > > > You do not just copy paste from rust std to linux kernel. You add code for dual error
> > > > reporting. Those code are completely unverified due to "panic not allowed policy".
> > >
> > > You keep claiming that but bring zero data to back your claim. So here's some data regarding
> > > the code in question: the changes between rust/alloc in the Rust-for-Linux tree compared to
> > > rust's library/alloc/src sources are a few hundred lines, most of which are attributes to disable
> > > things like OOM handling. I'm pretty sure that a few hundred lines can be verified in a reasonable
> > > amount of time, especially given that most of them aren't even unsafe code.
> > >
> > > > Also. Entire project is unsafe hell. No just the std crates part but other parts too.
> > > > https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust/rust/kernel/allocator.rs
> > >
> > > I'm presenting here a piece of what you call "unsafe hell" from that code you pointed out:
> > >
> > > unsafe {
> > > bindings::kfree(ptr as *const c_types::c_void);
> > > }
> > >
> > > That's calling kfree() on a pointer that undergoes a cast to void *. Is that what you call
> > > "unsafe hell"? I'm sorry but you'll have to do a more thorough analysis than grepping for "unsafe"
> > > if you want to convince anybody that this is a significant problem because right now you're just
> > > reinforcing my point that the unsafe code being introduced is as harmless as it can be.
> > >
> > > > You are arguing C and C++ are same languages? No. C clearly has much more CVEs than C++ in general.
> > > > You said C and C++ "combined" that does not make any sense. They are not the same language.
> > >
> > > Go back and read what I wrote again. I said that the Rust standard library is vastly larger
> > > than both the C standard library and the C++ standard library combined, is much younger
> > > than both and yet suffers from a surprisingly small number of reported issues.
> > >
> > > > https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/15519/Cryptopp.html
> > > >
> > > > What about cryptopp?? No memory safety CVEs at all compared to OpenSSL.
> > > >
> > > > If using Rust does not bring any benefit over modern C++, there is no point
> > > > due to all the troubles Rust would introduce (like no panic policy whatever).
> > >
> > > No advantages? Let's bring another data point: http://www.vegardno.net/2018/06/compiler-fuzzing.html
> > >
> > > From the article:
> > >
> > >

From the end of February until some time in April I ran the fuzzer on and off and
> > > reported just over 100 distinct gcc bugs in total [...] First, these bugs are mostly
> > > crashes: internal compiler errors ("ICEs"), assertion failures, and segfaults.
> > >
> > >

And then
> > >
> > >

However, I still think there is value in fuzzing compilers. Personally I find it very interesting that the
> > > same technique on rustc, the Rust compiler, only found 8
> > > bugs in a couple of weeks of fuzzing, and not a single
> > > one of them was an actual segfault. I think it does say something
> > > about the nature of the code base, code quality,
> > > and the relative dangers of different programming languages, in case it was not clear already.
> > >
> > >

> > >
> > >
> > You are brainwashed. Still does not change the fact, yes
> > it is unsafe hell. No data? Where are those CVEs come
> > from? Why Rust stdlib in one year has more CVEs than GCC + clang combined in the entire lifespan? Also how
> > do you prove Rust code in kernel would achieve the same result when you use unsafe for all functions?
> >
> > People even have to write paper to prove zealots like you are wrong.
> > https://songlh.github.io/paper/rust-study.pdf
> >
> >
> > Fuzzing LOL. I remembered Alex Gaynor said modern C++ does not save us, fuzzing is useless.
> >
> > Why do you need fuzzing if you think fuzzing only works
> > for C and C++? Because C and C++ violates human rights?
> >
> > Fuzzing GCC is a bad example to claim Rust has advantages over modern C++
> > since GCC still contains a very significant code with C style code.
> >
> >
> > GCC compared to LLVM. None of them has memory safety cves. NONE.
> > https://www.cvedetails.com/product/960/GNU-GCC.html?vendor_id=72
> > https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/13260/Llvm.html
> >
> >
> > For people like you, using C or C++ violates human rights. Of course you are going to continue lying.
>
> Your style is weirdly familiar. Did you by any chance used to be really, really pro-SPARC?

Oh. Modern C++ does not save us. Neither C nor C++ are fixable. Using C or C++ will destroy the earth and kill everyone. Using C or C++ violates human rights.

Okay. That is exactly the Rust advocator like you's logic. Alex Gaynor, one of the Rustsec evanglist (who is actually Rust dev) actively pushes Rust into Linux kernel because he treats C and C++ as some kind of great evil like hitler who violates human rights.


Right. Clearly Linus Torvalds is the worst human rights violator in the world based on him and people like you's logic.