[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFJgqgTTgy=yae68AE29oJQc7Bi+NvkgsrBtOkVUvRt1O0GzSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:40:44 -0700
From: Ventura Jack <venturajack85@...il.com>
To: Ralf Jung <post@...fj.de>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, airlied@...il.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, david.laight.linux@...il.com, ej@...i.de,
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
Subject: Re: C aggregate passing (Rust kernel policy)
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:14 AM Ralf Jung <post@...fj.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> > [Omitted]
> >
> > Are you sure that both stacked borrows and tree borrows are
> > meant to be full models with no false positives and false negatives,
> > and no uncertainty, if I understand you correctly?
>
> Speaking as an author of both models: yes. These models are candidates for the
> *definition* of which programs are correct and which are not. In that sense,
> once adopted, the model *becomes* the baseline, and by definition has no false
> negative or false positives.
Thank you for the answer, that clarifies matters for me.
> [Omitted] (However, verification tools are
> in the works as well, and thanks to Miri we have a very good idea of what
> exactly it is that these tools have to check for.) [Omitted]
Verification as in static verification? That is some interesting and
exciting stuff if so.
Best, VJ.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists