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: <CAMP44s3W1XUBma0AvTd5qeNaqZoScNd97m_aQUK=GqYYeMs-ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:42:53 -0600
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, airlied@...il.com, 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 Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 2:37 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:59:10PM -0600, Felipe Contreras 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.
> >
>
> Huh? Your previous reply is:
>
> "*If* they can be written in Rust in the first place. You are skipping
> that very important precondition."
>
> how does that imply you questioned whether *all* drivers can be written
> in Rust.
>
> Care to explain your logic?

People should really stop thinking in black-and-white terms.

If I say I'm not convinced the coin landed heads does that mean I'm
convinced the coin landed tails? No. If I say I'm not convinced god
exists does that mean I'm convinced god doesn't exist? No.

Being skeptical of a claim is not the same thing as believing it's false.

One can hope all drivers can be written in Rust while at the same time
being skeptical that that is necessarily the case.

-- 
Felipe Contreras