Linux royalty backs adoption of Rust for kernel code
-
I don't know about you, but I prefer provably correct code over "just trust me bro."
There's an analogy I like here. A manager at a trucking company was hiring a new driver, and he asked each of them how close they could get to the edge on a mountain pass. The first said, "I can get within a wheel's width." The second said, "I can drive on the edge, with part of the tire hanging off." And the third said, "I stay away from the edge." The third applicant got the job, because why take the risk?
That's how I feel about C/C++. Why use them if Rust can do the job? You get a lot more safety features without sacrificing performance, what's not to like?
That’s kind the entirety of my point: if Rust is a tool that can make expressing algorithms safer and less prone to error - and it can, in a logically provable sense - then what the fuck ground do you have to push back on?
-
Just fork it, do a complete rewrite in Rust, and call it “Runix”
More OS options is better for everyone.
Theres heaps of stuff that is under-developed or mssing, but they prefer to rewrite working code in Rust, because ideology.
We are witnessing the death of Linux here, no less, replacing a working kernal with an still undefined language that everyone will have forgotten in 5 years.
-
Greg Kroah-Hartman... urged fellow contributors to embrace those interested in contributing Rust code to improve the kernel.
"Adding another language really shouldn't be a problem... embrace the people offering to join us
Thoughts on this?
I feel like better tooling is a safer bet. I know people hate on AI here but tooling that can detect flaws in C memory management would be basically as good as Rust itself.
-
I just want WindowsXP without security risks. If Linux could make a WindowsXP clone, that works with exe files, and works exactly like WindowsXP, except handles modern standards, I would jizz all over the place.
Yeah. I'm leaving it in as motivation for linux developers. If they don't want to hear about my jizz spraying like a firehose, they should made LindowsXP.
SEE??? I EVEN GAVE YOU A GREAT BRAND NAME!
There was a "Lindows" back in the day...
-
The second they make it a mixed code base, that's the same second quality will deteriorate.
I envy your confidence!
Maybe I'm wrong, but as I read the article, Linus isn't convinced this is a good idea either.
I'm not saying things can never change, but opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster. -
In general, for me, Rust > C > C++.
I've heard people say that C is like a loaded and cocked revolved, and if you're not careful, you could blow your foot off, whereas C++ is like a loaded and cocked sawed-off shotgun, and if you're not careful, you could blow your leg off.
C++ is a semi automatic shotgun with 200 barrels pointing in all directions.
-
Greg Kroah-Hartman... urged fellow contributors to embrace those interested in contributing Rust code to improve the kernel.
"Adding another language really shouldn't be a problem... embrace the people offering to join us
Thoughts on this?
In my mind, introducing Rust would only make sense if:
- There was a serious lack of current kernel developers (which I don't think there is)
- New hardware and tech was evolving at a rate that the Linux Kernel could not keep up (again, I don't think this is am issue)
- The end goal is to migrate the entire Kernel to Rust.
Regarding point 3, having both C and Rust really only makes sense as a transition phase (measured in years) - as it would require kernel developers to be savvy in both C and Rust, or would force developers to stay within whatever domains were implemented in C or Rust.
-
Greg Kroah-Hartman... urged fellow contributors to embrace those interested in contributing Rust code to improve the kernel.
"Adding another language really shouldn't be a problem... embrace the people offering to join us
Thoughts on this?
Despite my drive-by shitposts in the rest of this thread I want to make a serious point here.
There's a large part of software engineering that thinks languages are chosen based on the problem, as a tool for a job.
They aren't. They're chosen based on the team, on how well the team knows and can use the tool.
On how many people can be hired with the knowledge of the tool to work immediately.Sometimes, even if the team knows C well, there can be a problem so different it's worth using another tool. say python for some testing scripts on a C project.
But rust and C are too similar for this to apply.
If you want rust to be used for the kernel you have to push for it to be more well known and used, so more Devs come into teams already knowing it well.
Anyone agreeing to work on a team using rust is making a career decision that will be stay on their CV forever and you need them to feel good about this, that it will give them more opportunity in future.It'll take 20+ years because that's how long legacy code is often maintained for and we already have 20+ years of future legacy code for C teams to deal with. We're all making more future legacy C code than future legacy rust code too.
I'm trapped in C++ so I'm doomed but good luck C and Rust coders.
-
In my mind, introducing Rust would only make sense if:
- There was a serious lack of current kernel developers (which I don't think there is)
- New hardware and tech was evolving at a rate that the Linux Kernel could not keep up (again, I don't think this is am issue)
- The end goal is to migrate the entire Kernel to Rust.
Regarding point 3, having both C and Rust really only makes sense as a transition phase (measured in years) - as it would require kernel developers to be savvy in both C and Rust, or would force developers to stay within whatever domains were implemented in C or Rust.
What's in your mind does not coincide with the professional experience of Greg KH. You shoyld read what he had to say on the subject.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but as I read the article, Linus isn't convinced this is a good idea either.
I'm not saying things can never change, but opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.You're wrong, but it's possible the article gave you that impression. Read the mailing-list thread.
It's particularly worth reading Ted T'so's contribution, which (considering his rude behaviour at the recent con led to a previous round of this nonsense) seems much more positive.
-
I don't know about you, but I prefer provably correct code over "just trust me bro."
There's an analogy I like here. A manager at a trucking company was hiring a new driver, and he asked each of them how close they could get to the edge on a mountain pass. The first said, "I can get within a wheel's width." The second said, "I can drive on the edge, with part of the tire hanging off." And the third said, "I stay away from the edge." The third applicant got the job, because why take the risk?
That's how I feel about C/C++. Why use them if Rust can do the job? You get a lot more safety features without sacrificing performance, what's not to like?
Did somebody say "provably correct"?
Haskell has entered the chat
-
In my mind, introducing Rust would only make sense if:
- There was a serious lack of current kernel developers (which I don't think there is)
- New hardware and tech was evolving at a rate that the Linux Kernel could not keep up (again, I don't think this is am issue)
- The end goal is to migrate the entire Kernel to Rust.
Regarding point 3, having both C and Rust really only makes sense as a transition phase (measured in years) - as it would require kernel developers to be savvy in both C and Rust, or would force developers to stay within whatever domains were implemented in C or Rust.
it would require kernel developers to be savvy in both C and Rust
From my experience knowing how both C and rust works makes you a better developer in both languages.
-
That does NOT sound like a good idea.
We've turned our development model into a well-oiled engineering marvel,
Exactly, and I'm pretty sure one of the reasons is that it's remained on C, and NOT switched to C++, as has been often suggested.
The second they make it a mixed code base, that's the same second quality will deteriorate. Mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.Edit:
Torvalds eventually responded by defending the Linux kernel development process and scolding Martin for grandstanding on social media about the issue. Martin later quit as a Linux maintainer and resigned from the Asahi Linux project.
Seems like Linus isn't onboard with this.
But I guess all the downvoters know better?
opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.
Greg Kroah-Hartman:
Yes, mixed language codebases are rough, and hard to maintain, but we are kernel developers, dammit.
That's special pleading, that lacks basis in reality. Still he admits it's rough to mix codebases.
I'm not claiming Rust wouldn't be brilliant in some situations, but the detraction of a mixed codebase is worse than the benefit.
-
I don't know about you, but I prefer provably correct code over "just trust me bro."
There's an analogy I like here. A manager at a trucking company was hiring a new driver, and he asked each of them how close they could get to the edge on a mountain pass. The first said, "I can get within a wheel's width." The second said, "I can drive on the edge, with part of the tire hanging off." And the third said, "I stay away from the edge." The third applicant got the job, because why take the risk?
That's how I feel about C/C++. Why use them if Rust can do the job? You get a lot more safety features without sacrificing performance, what's not to like?
Because people already know C/C++.
-
it would require kernel developers to be savvy in both C and Rust
From my experience knowing how both C and rust works makes you a better developer in both languages.
Oh absolutely, but you could argue the same for learning lisp or mastering any functional programming language (list comprehensions, etc). It will improve your design patterns when you go back to an object oriented language with some elements of functional programming.
-
What's in your mind does not coincide with the professional experience of Greg KH. You shoyld read what he had to say on the subject.
What?!? Actually, read the article? What is this, Reddit? /s
Seriously, though - let me spin the question around: what, in your mind, overlaps with what Greg said?
(plus, OP was just interested in people opinions - not whether they align/contradict with Greg, Linus, etc)
-
What?!? Actually, read the article? What is this, Reddit? /s
Seriously, though - let me spin the question around: what, in your mind, overlaps with what Greg said?
(plus, OP was just interested in people opinions - not whether they align/contradict with Greg, Linus, etc)
-
To add something to this: linux has avoided internal SPIs for a long time. It's often lauded as one of the reasons it hasn't ossified.
However, some subsystems have a huge amount of complexity and hidden constraint in how you correctly use them. Some of that may be inherent, but more of it will be accidental.
Wrapping type-erased shims around this that attempt to capture (some of) those semantics shines a light onto the problem. The effort raises good technical questions around whether the C layer can be improved. Where maintainers have approached that with an open mind, the results are positive for both C and Rust consumers. Difficult interfaces are a source of bugs; it's always worth asking whether that difficulty is inherent or accidental.
-
C++ is a semi automatic shotgun with 200 barrels pointing in all directions.
Whilst it's gotten a lot better in the -17 and -20 iterations, the fact that there was recently a doorstop book published solely on the subject of C++ initialisation semantics is pretty telling.
I really like what Herb Sutter's doing around cppfront; I still wouldn't use C++ unless I absolutely had to.
-
System shared this topic on
-
In my mind, introducing Rust would only make sense if:
- There was a serious lack of current kernel developers (which I don't think there is)
- New hardware and tech was evolving at a rate that the Linux Kernel could not keep up (again, I don't think this is am issue)
- The end goal is to migrate the entire Kernel to Rust.
Regarding point 3, having both C and Rust really only makes sense as a transition phase (measured in years) - as it would require kernel developers to be savvy in both C and Rust, or would force developers to stay within whatever domains were implemented in C or Rust.
- There was a serious lack of current kernel developers (which I don't think there is)
Maybe not at the moment, but my understanding is that the pool of qualified C programmers is shrinking rapidly, because the old guard is all ageing out and there simply are not enough intermediate developers coding in C at the level that Kernel development requires.
Having a larger (and growing) pool of upcoming developers interested in systems programming and software excellence is one of the explicit stated reasons that Linus et al. considered Rust in the first place.
