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

MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 125 posts

Re: MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

#12

Post by vlovich123 »

cedws wrote: post #5
rrr_oh_man wrote: post #2

[flagged]

It's not wrong. Linux does not have a great security track record, it was built on completely different security principles than the ones we have today. You can find public criticism from Theo de Raadt and grsecurity if you want to find out more. It's a kernel that has served us well, especially considering its ubiquity, but it will never be a "secure" kernel.

I think it’s a shock when compared with the insecurity of Windows also forgetting that that was the reality on the ground in the 90s and that Windows also had a larger share. Windows has since hardened their security model and could be a more secure out of the box experience than Linux (eg shipping with TPM and FDE set up correctly).

But yeah, there’s plenty of things you’d do differently if you wanted to properly secure Linux. It just shows that economically that’s not the most important thing for companies using Linux.

Re: MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

#13

Post by vlovich123 »

omeid2 wrote: post #10
38 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It is fascinating how despite the thousands and thousands of high profile memory related RCE vulnerabilities, how this community doesn't seem to like pointing the fact that C is an unsafe language.

Keep in mind the other important difference for this project which is a microkernel design with most operations running in isolated user space processes/libraries. That also helps limit the ability to exploit vulnerabilities in one place to take over other parts of the system.

Re: MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

#14

Post by cedws »

vlovich123 wrote: post #12
cedws wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not wrong. Linux does not have a great security track record, it was built on completely different security principles than the ones we have today. You can find public criticism from Theo de Raadt and grsecurity if you want to find out more. It's a kernel that has served us well, especially considering its ubiquity, but it will never be a "secure" kernel.

I think it’s a shock when compared with the insecurity of Windows also forgetting that that was the reality on the ground in the 90s and that Windows also had a larger share. Windows has since hardened their security model and could be a more secure out of the box experience than Linux (eg shipping with TPM and FDE set up correctly). But yeah, there’s plenty of things you’d do differently if you wanted to properly se…

I think you are confusing Linux the Kernel with Linux-based operating systems. The original quote from the README was referencing the kernel and made no comparison to Windows or the NT kernel.

Re: MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

#15

Post by josh2600 »

fulafel wrote: post #7
rrr_oh_man wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Everything is relative of course but it's a consensus view in OS literature that the Unix family of operating systems doesn't have strong security. There's a huge TCB in which bugs lead to vulnerabilities with high probability, as we see all the time. This is why eg cloud providers don't rely on the OS to isolate customers from each other. Since the reneissance of virtualization, many security focused systems have bu…

Everything in security is layers of defense against a threat model.

To design a secure system one must first ask who is going to attack it and with what forces.

Making truly secure systems is an art and is rarified ground.

Re: MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

#16

Post by wmf »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #8
38 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD

OpenBSD has existed for 30 years. In retrospect I wonder if the time would have been better spent developing a more secure language and porting BSD to that instead of meticulously scrubbing C code for each new class of bug.

Re: MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

#17

Post by faitswulff »

The author wrote this on reddit:

> What does "Rust-first" mean here? It means not only that both the (micro) kernel and the drivers are implemented in Rust, but also that Rust is the first (and only, at the moment) language that userspace programs can be written in.

> Although technically one can reverse-engineer the Rust-based ABI and the provided Rust toolchain to write apps for Motor OS in e.g. C, that is some work. But standard Rust programs (using standard Rust library, without FFI) will just compile and run - see e.g. https://github.com/moturus/motor-os/tree/main/src/bin/httpd.

> This Rust-first approach is rather unique, as e.g. Redox uses relibc and C-based kernel ABI as the glue...

https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/190znk5/mot%C5%ABrus_...

Re: MotorOS: a Rust-first operating system for x64 VMs

#19

Post by tourmalinetaco »

omeid2 wrote: post #10
38 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It is fascinating how despite the thousands and thousands of high profile memory related RCE vulnerabilities, how this community doesn't seem to like pointing the fact that C is an unsafe language.

Rust is only “safe” because by default you’re not allowed to do certain things. If you applied those same limitations to C it would be just as if not more safe. And the things you’re not allowed to do in “safe” Rust is required in various applications that C excels at, meaning that for Rust to do the same it has to be “unsafe”.
Post reply on HN