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: <1D187908-AA1B-4D17-A0AF-8672BE7476C2@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 04:13:59 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
        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 February 20, 2025 4:01:28 AM PST, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>On February 19, 2025 10:32:15 PM PST, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:33:56AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> b. Can we use existing mature tools, such as C++, to *immediately* improve the quality (not just memory safety!) of our 37-year-old, 35-million line code base and allow for further centralized improvements without the major lag required for compiler extensions to be requested and implemented in gcc (and clang) *and* dealing with the maturity issue?
>>
>>We can't and for technical reasons:
>>
>>* g++ requires C99 initializers to be in declaration order,
>>  even in cases where there is no reason to do so.
>>
>>* g++ doesn't support __seg_gs at all:
>>
>>	$ echo -n -e 'int __seg_gs gs;' | g++ -xc++ - -S -o /dev/null
>>	<stdin>:1:14: error: expected initializer before ‘gs’
>>
>>  x86 added this to improve codegen quality so this would be step backwards.
>
>Ok, so those are obvious problems, and I agree that having to rely on the legacy implementation of gs: is undesirable as anything than a transaction crutch.
>
>

Make that *transition* crutch. Stupid autocorrect.