“Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
1–10 of 542 posts
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#2To put things in context, Linus is being reasonable and wise and well-mannered once again. Wouldn't mind reading a few juicy expletives, to be honest.
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#3[deleted]
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#4I am the only one who would have a hard time to collaborate on a project where the "collaborators" start their message with
> You need to realize that
> (a) reality trumps fantasy
?
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#5To put things in context, Linus is being reasonable and wise and well-mannered once again. Wouldn't mind reading a few juicy expletives, to be honest.
I would rather believe in Rust than Santa Claus.
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#6I know next to nothing about kernel programming, but I'm not sure here what Linus' objection to the comment he is responding to here is.
The comment seemed to be making reference to rust's safety guarantees about undefined behaviour like use after free.
Linus' seems to have a completely different definition of "safey" that conflates allocation failures, indexing out of bounds, and division by zero with memory safety. Rust makes no claims about those problems, and the comment clearly refers to undefined behaviour. Obviously, those other problems are real problems, but just not ones that Rust claims to solve.
Edit: Reading the chain further along, it increasingly feels like Linus is aruging against a strawman.
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#7> Not completing the operation at all, is not really any better than
getting the wrong answer, it's only more debuggable.
Wouldn't be that sure about that. Getting the wrong answer can be a serious security problem. Not completing the operation... well, it is not good, but that's it.
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#8To put things in context, Linus is being reasonable and wise and well-mannered once again. Wouldn't mind reading a few juicy expletives, to be honest.
As someone else in the thread notes, they seem to be talking past one and other. [0]
Linus may view his job as "Saying No" but the way he does it still leaves a little to be desired, because his reasoning is sound here, but it's less "Follow my reasoning" than "You don't want to get yelled at again do you?"
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFRnB2VPpLSMqQwFPEjZhde8+-c6LL...
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#9Not all that familiar with the specifics of Rust, but I assume it’s “safety” is somewhat similar to Swift’s “safety,” so type safety and memory safety, which does not mean no crashes, just that you will e.g. crash on an array OOB error rather than start writing or reading to random bits of memory.
Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety
#10Why is panicing in the kernel on an error not an option? Like kernels can write a core dump and reboot, right?