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

Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

blog.lenot.re

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 380 posts

Re: Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

#11

Post by K0nserv »

insanitybit wrote: post #6

A memory safe linux kernel would be a fairly incredible thing. If you could snap your fingers and have it, the wins would be huge. Consider that right now a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware, exactly because the Linux kernel has so many security issues and they're exposed to containers. The reason why a VM like Firecracker is so much safer is that it removes the kernel as the primary…

I largely agree, but this seems quite unfair to Linux.

> But damn, if Linux had been built with safety in mind security would be a lot simpler. Being able to trust the kernel would be so nice.

For its time, it was built with safety in mind, we can't hold it to a standard that wasn't prevalent until ~20 years later

Re: Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

#12

Post by OscarCunningham »

scoot wrote: post #10
insanitybit wrote: post #6

A memory safe linux kernel would be a fairly incredible thing. If you could snap your fingers and have it, the wins would be huge. Consider that right now a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware, exactly because the Linux kernel has so many security issues and they're exposed to containers. The reason why a VM like Firecracker is so much safer is that it removes the kernel as the primary…

> a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware "to not contain"? Edit to contain (ahem!) the downvotes: I was genuinely confused by the ambiguous use of "contain", but comments below cleared that up.

They're using 'contain' to mean 'keep isolated'. If you put some malware in a docker container, you can't rely on docker to keep the rest of your system safe.

Re: Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

#15

Post by rhabarba »

weinzierl wrote: post #13
dottedmag wrote: post #5

Syscalls are easy. Drivers will be tough.

Drivers are the tough part and the lack of a stable interface in Linux makes them hard to reuse.

People who want stable interfaces should not touch anything Linux with a ten-foot pole.

Re: Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

#16

Post by FpUser »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #12
scoot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware "to not contain"? Edit to contain (ahem!) the downvotes: I was genuinely confused by the ambiguous use of "contain", but comments below cleared that up.

They're using 'contain' to mean 'keep isolated'. If you put some malware in a docker container, you can't rely on docker to keep the rest of your system safe.

Does the fact that docker runs as a root have something to do with it?

Re: Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

#17

Post by quickthrower2 »

scoot wrote: post #10
insanitybit wrote: post #6

A memory safe linux kernel would be a fairly incredible thing. If you could snap your fingers and have it, the wins would be huge. Consider that right now a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware, exactly because the Linux kernel has so many security issues and they're exposed to containers. The reason why a VM like Firecracker is so much safer is that it removes the kernel as the primary…

> a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware "to not contain"? Edit to contain (ahem!) the downvotes: I was genuinely confused by the ambiguous use of "contain", but comments below cleared that up.

a docker image can’t be relied on to not contain malware and a docker container can’t be relied on to contain malware.

Re: Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

#19

Post by _flux »

cies wrote: post #7

Compatible means "syscall compatible" (I get that from the article). I wonder if it also means kernel module compatible (I dont think so, as the API touch point surface is much larger), but if it strives to be that'd be great (use all hardware that works on Linux).

Not even Linux itself is kernel module compatible from version to version, so it would be exceedingly difficult to try to be compatible with it.

Re: Maestro: A Linux-compatible kernel in Rust

#20

Post by GuB-42 »

insanitybit wrote: post #6

A memory safe linux kernel would be a fairly incredible thing. If you could snap your fingers and have it, the wins would be huge. Consider that right now a docker container can't be relied upon to contain arbitrary malware, exactly because the Linux kernel has so many security issues and they're exposed to containers. The reason why a VM like Firecracker is so much safer is that it removes the kernel as the primary…

More like memory safer. A kernel necessarily has a lot of unsafe parts. See: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Allenotre%2Fmaestro+unsafe...

Rust is not a magic bullet, it just reduces the attack surface by isolating the unsafe parts. Another way to reduce the attack surface would be to use a microkernel architecture, it has a cost though.

Post reply on HN