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: <20250220112608.38689-1-safinaskar@zohomail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:26:08 +0300
From: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>
To: hpa@...or.com
Cc: airlied@...il.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	hch@...radead.org,
	ksummit@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Rust kernel policy

> As far as I understand, Rust-style memory safety is being worked on for C++

Yes, there is PoC called "Safe C++" [1]. And it is already implemented in Circle C++ compiler.
You can see at the link how Safe C++ looks like. But it seems that this proposal will not be
accepted to standard, so if we choose this path, our code will not be written in standard C++.

As you can see, Safe C++ is much different from normal C or C++. So if we choose Safe C++, whole
kernel should be rewritten. (But I personally will totally love if some company spends billions of
dollars for such rewritting.)

[1]: https://safecpp.org/draft.html