[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPM=9ty9KWFE+AkHi5FDrb8=O5bzbVEroT2fx7jLG5JK6HZ+tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:04:55 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
hpa@...or.com, 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
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 15:59, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Boqun Feng wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:19:09PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Greg KH wrote:
> > > > But for new code / drivers, writing them in rust where these types of
> > > > bugs just can't happen (or happen much much less) is a win for all of
> > > > us, why wouldn't we do this?
> > >
> > > *If* they can be written in Rust in the first place. You are skipping that
> > > very important precondition.
> >
> > Hmm.. there are multiple old/new drivers (not a complete list) already
> > in Rust:
>
> That is a black swan fallacy. Just because you've seen 4 white swans
> that doesn't mean all swans are white.
>
> > , so is there still a question that drivers can be written in Rust?
>
> I didn't say no driver can be written Rust, I questioned whether *all*
> drivers can be written in Rust.
>
> People are operating under that assumption, but it isn't necessarily true.
That doesn't make sense, like you could make a statement that not all
drivers could be written in C, but it would be trash, so why do you
think rust is different?
if you said 100% safe rust I'd agree, but that isn't the goal.
Dave.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists