[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7a3958e-7a0a-482e-823a-9d6efcb4b577@stanley.mountain>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:05:49 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
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 Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:08:18AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> But that also shows how core maintainers
> are put off by trivial things like checking for integer overflows or
> compiler enforced synchronization (as in the clang thread sanitizer).
> How are we're going to bridge the gap between a part of the kernel that
> is not even accepting relatively easy rules for improving safety vs
> another one that enforces even strong rules.
Yeah. It's an ironic thing...
unsigned long total = nr * size;
if (nr > ULONG_MAX / size)
return -EINVAL;
In an ideal world, people who write code like that should receive a
permanent ban from promoting Rust.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists