linux-kernel - Re: Rust kernel policy

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]

Message-ID: <20250219140821.27fa1e8a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:08:21 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig
 <hch@...radead.org>, rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, Linus
 Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg KH
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Rust kernel policy

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:52:37 -0800
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> wrote:

> In other words, I don't see any reason to focus on replacing existing
> code -- doing so would actually carry a lot of risk. But writing *new*
> stuff in Rust is very effective. Old code is more stable and has fewer
> bugs already, and yet, we're still going to continue the work of hardening
> C, because we still need to shake those bugs out. But *new* code can be
> written in Rust, and not have any of these classes of bugs at all from
> day one.

I would say *new drivers* than say *new code*. A lot of new code is written
in existing infrastructure that doesn't mean it needs to be converted over
to rust.

But that does show why enhancements to C like the guard() code is still
very important.

-- Steve