Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#2As a lover of Rust, ooo boy does this sound like a bad idea. The Rust compiler is not guaranteed to always output safe code against malicious inputs given that there’s numerous known soundness bugs that allow exploiting this. Unless I’m missing something this is a security nightmare of an idea.
Also there’s reasons why eBPF programs aren’t allowed to run arbitrarily long and this just ignores that problem too.
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#3> This approach avoids the overly restricted verification requirements (e.g., program complexity constraints)
Maybe i'm missing something, but isn't that a bad thing?
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#4As a lover of Rust, ooo boy does this sound like a bad idea. The Rust compiler is not guaranteed to always output safe code against malicious inputs given that there’s numerous known soundness bugs that allow exploiting this. Unless I’m missing something this is a security nightmare of an idea. Also there’s reasons why eBPF programs aren’t allowed to run arbitrarily long and this just ignores that problem too.
In this comment someone tries to justify its design, citing a lwn article: https://github.com/rex-rs/rex/issues/2#issuecomment-26965339...
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#5As a lover of Rust, ooo boy does this sound like a bad idea. The Rust compiler is not guaranteed to always output safe code against malicious inputs given that there’s numerous known soundness bugs that allow exploiting this. Unless I’m missing something this is a security nightmare of an idea. Also there’s reasons why eBPF programs aren’t allowed to run arbitrarily long and this just ignores that problem too.
Fully agree.
If it has to be native code, it should live on user space, at very least.
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#6> This approach avoids the overly restricted verification requirements (e.g., program complexity constraints) Maybe i'm missing something, but isn't that a bad thing?
Yes, very bad, even worse when coming from supposedly security conscious programming language community.
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#7We need a way to run HolyC in the kernel
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#8As a lover of Rust, ooo boy does this sound like a bad idea. The Rust compiler is not guaranteed to always output safe code against malicious inputs given that there’s numerous known soundness bugs that allow exploiting this. Unless I’m missing something this is a security nightmare of an idea. Also there’s reasons why eBPF programs aren’t allowed to run arbitrarily long and this just ignores that problem too.
In this comment someone tries to justify its design, citing a lwn article: https://github.com/rex-rs/rex/issues/2#issuecomment-26965339...
That's one aspect of the design. Again, complexity requirements are there for a reason. No explanation seen for why this eschews them.
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#9We need a way to run HolyC in the kernel
You can run HolyC in the kernel. Just not the Linux kernel.
Re: Rex is a safe kernel extension framework that allows Rust in the place of eBPF
#10[flagged]