Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

lkml.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 542 posts

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#101

Post by shepherdjerred »

fritolaid wrote: post #73
atoav wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if it is a cosmetic thing sure. If it has substantial meaning I would rather have that 5 ton robotic welding arm not move than have it move through my skill. It is sometimes acceptable to get wrong output. But is nearly always better to know it is wrong.

Unless it was holding a welding gun and stopped on one spot with the welding flame turned on instead of gracefully turning off the flame and backing away. Never used Rust before but is there a way to supply some default code to run in such a situation instead of just not carrying out the bad operation?

Yes, you can define your own panic handler in Rust.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/panic-handler.html

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#102

Post by pornel »

TillE wrote: post #74
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #49

I’ve been using Rust for a while, and I’m so, so tired of hearing this argument. Yes, we know. We get it. Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs. This is obvious and well-known to anyone actually using Rust. At this point, the argument feels like some sort of ideological debate happening outside the realm of actually getting work done. It feels like any time someone says…

It's really common to see people say meaningless stuff like "Rust is a safe language" which is either deeply confused or deeply misleading. Rust provides certain guarantees of memory safety, which is great, but it's important to understand exactly what that means and not to oversell it.

It's an unproductive pedantry to expect every mention of the generalisation to be followed by a full disclaimer about exceptions and edge cases.

People say "it's raining" without having to add "except under roofs".

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#103

Post by a_humean »

layer8 wrote: post #84
a_humean wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why Rust has been accommodating the kernel by adding non-panic versions of the functions that Linus has been complaining about (namely that memory allocation is infallible, because that isn't an unreasonable thing to assume in applicationc code.). Still doesn't change the fact that "safe" in this context has a technical meaning, and what Linus is describing isn't that.

The issue that Linus is probably coming from is that many Rust aficionados evangelize for Rust as if the very specific technical meaning of “safe” in Rust was the generic meaning of “safe”. For those who understand the limitations and the trade-offs, that can be quite tiresome.

Except, the person he is responding to doesn't make those claims - though I haven't read further up the chain - only downwards.

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#104

Post by blueflow »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #35
rat9988 wrote: post #4

I 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 ?

This is also the “toned down” version of Linus. If he were any other person, he’d have been axed a long time ago for this behavior. I don’t understand how people put up with this kind of toxicity, even from him.

I bear this because in my opinion, software development has insufficient regulation and standards. I've seen enough bad software that im glad that someone is enforcing some standards regarding worst-case behavior, because this is something that is neglected too often.

Its a bit sad that Linus needs to replicate individually what other engineering disciplines are mandated to by regulations. Look at car, train or aviation safety, they are decades ahead.

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#105

Post by jstimpfle »

coldtea wrote: post #61

> And the reality is that there are no absolute guarantees. Ever. The "Rust is safe" is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety. Never has been. Anybody who believes that should probably re-take their kindergarten year, and stop believing in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus. I thought that he had apologised and regretted being hostile in comments. Apparently not. Not that I have much of an issue with ranty…

> The point he makes is BS. > Yeah, DUH! > Well, if Linus doesn't realize

Bordering the hypocritical... And I got the impression you missed his point as well.

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#107

Post by charcircuit »

atty wrote: post #25
tcfhgj wrote: post #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.

The kernel can’t fail to complete its operations, because then the entire system crashes and no logs are created. Instead, you can finish the operation and check the result.

panic doesn't instantly crash the program. It prints out debug information first. You could have kernel panics work the same way.

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#108

Post by LunaSea »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #83
mid-kid wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as many people have problems with this form of communication, many people find it hard to clearly express themselves in an environment where they're expected to put people's feelings above all else. What some might perceive as "hostile", others would simply call "honest". It's simply a matter of preference.

No, it’s not “simply a matter of preference” when it causes someone else to be in a hostile work environment. At that point, you’re affecting the lives of those around you. Sure, some people have medical conditions that might prevent them from seeing this, but even they put in an effort to be better. It stops being a “preference” when it actively hurts those around you. If you are an asshole, are known to be an assho…

Aren't other people joining his project in this case?

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#109

Post by mynameisvlad »

ectopod wrote: post #97
mynameisvlad wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s crazy to think that advocating for reasonable, non-toxic people to work with receives this kind response. Inclusivity and non-hostile work environments should not be considered “perfect” and “all-inclusive”. They should be basic . The default . The lowest bar possible .

Which is worse? a) Having poor communication skills. b) Describing people as toxic.

If the shoe fits.

Do you have any actual counter points or were you planning on beating that ad hominem to death?

Re: “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

#110

Post by Test0129 »

lucasyvas wrote: post #95
flohofwoe wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs. That's not exactly the vibe I'm getting from the typical Rust fanboys popping up whenever there's another CVE caused by the usage of C or C++ though ;) Rust does seem to attract the same sort of insufferable personalities that have been so typical for C++ in the past. Why that is, I have no idea.

It protects against the leading 70 percent of CVEs, which are due to memory safety issues. This is all Rust has ever claimed to solve and it's all I've ever seen anyone cite when advocating for it. If these people are insufferable to you, that I can't change your mind on. That said you might want to get used to it since major areas of industry are already considering C/C++ as deprecated (a paraphrasing from the Azure…

I didn't know the Azure CTO was the CTO was the C++ community. I'm sure the billions of lines of code written in C++ for the finance industry would love to have a word.

The insufferable nature of the people isn't the advocating of safety. It's that Rust seems to have evolved a community of "X wouldn't have happened if Y was written in Rust!" and then walking away like they just transferred the one bit of knowledge everyone needed. They occupy less than 1% of the programming community and act like they single-handedly are the only people who understand correctness. It's this smug sense of superiority that is completely undeserved that makes the community insufferable. Not the safety "guarantees" of the language.

Post reply on HN