cqwrteur (euloanty.delete@this.live.com) on July 10, 2021 9:59 am wrote:
> The argument
> unsafe is only used for exceptional circumanstances is just like the argument "C++ exceptions
> should only be used in exceptional circumanstances." They are completely wrong in real world.

What is this supposed to mean exactly? First, many C++ projects do not even use exceptions. Second, I fail to see the relevance of comparing the Rust "unsafe" keyword (a specialized facility for writing low-level code that needs to eschew default validations) with C++ exceptions (an error handling mechanism).

> 2. I seriously doubt that you truly need Rc, Arc (shared_ptr) or his friends
> in kernel. It does not look like a good code smell for me either.

Er... where did I say that they were needed for the kernel?

> 3. unsafe keyword has a side effect is that it might make attacker's
> life easier too since attacker can go and grep unsafe and attack it.

This is advocating for security through obscurity.

> I do not believe Rust code like "Rust-for-linux" truly make any code safer.

Perhaps, but your beliefs are irrelevant. The proof will be in the pudding, once a significant amount of Rust code has been integrated in the kernel.

> Can you show me an example using C or C++ kills people in real world?

Yawn. Is this supposed to be a serious discussion or are you only interested to reiterating this strawman over and over?

Whether or not C or C++ actually killed people is irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual socio-economical cost (or damage) of memory safety bugs.

> The safety in programming world has nothing to do with safety in real world.

Why wouldn't it, exactly?

> The cve numbers in rust std and crates (no including redox os, firefox etc, i can show them too) are a lot.
> Rust std in one year has 8 memory safety cves than all C++ standard library in entire lifespan

Does it? And why is that even relevant? The Linux kernel is not written in C++, it's written in C. It's C code that Rust is aiming to replace in the kernel.

If you think the kernel should also include C++ code, then why not. I'm not a Linux kernel maintainer. You'll need to convince them.

> The worst part like some cves like CVE-2021-31162 has CVSS 9.8 score (https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-31162)
> which is worse than Eternal Blue.

So? This certainly seems to show that Rust is still young and slightly immature in parts (which may be a legimitate concern). It doesn't show that the Rust-specific safety features are useless.

> You said i should try to contact people who wrote those code.

No. I said you should try to contact those people *or* people who maintain the kernel and accepted the code for inclusion. They are the people who can give you the explanations you claim to be looking for.