linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:37:02 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Dave Airlie' <airlied@...il.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"pinskia@...il.com" <pinskia@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++

> Can we get memory safety with C++ now? and also stop people coding C++
> like it's 1994?

What is the run-time cost?
Things like 'smart pointers' are dumb!
CSTRING is an abomination.

I suspect you need to pass array_pointer:length pairs about in
order to get reasonably array bound checking.
So splitting C's pointer-array equivalence.

But you then need to efficiently return them from functions.
That really needs a register pair be used.
Typically two registers are reserved for function returns,
but are only ever used for double-sized integers.
Doing that without compiler support would be hard work.

The other elephant in the room is compilation speed.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)