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

Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

lkml.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#21

Post by steveklabnik »

uecker wrote: post #12
vsgherzi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complaints I have with rust are going to be on the async side. We need memory safety in the kernel, it dosen't have to be majority but having vital parts in rust could be a game changer. The kernel must evolve, all players are moving this way. Swift is being introduced into Darwin, Rust into Windows. Memory safety is not a fad and the only tangible options right now is rust. Swift could be interesting but creates…

I think a far better approach to memory safety in C projects is to evolve tools and annotate existing code. It is also not true that everybody moves to Rust and I think the claims about memory safety are overblown (due use of unsafe Rust). In my experience as a observer and contributor of open-source and free software for the last decades, these changes driven by enthusiastic and opinionated small group that try chan…

> I think a far better approach to memory safety in C projects is to evolve tools and annotate existing code.

The advantage of Rust is that it already exists. Someone has to do the work to bring that to fruition before it's practically applicable.

> these changes driven by enthusiastic and opinionated small group

In this case, that group includes Linus.

> Going into existing projects and changing them according to "opinions" is a really bad idea.

The Rust for Linux folks already worked on Linux for years. They aren't outsiders.

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#22

Post by menaerus »

steveklabnik wrote: post #19
menaerus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is entirely technical and I think it has been formulated clearly - maintaining cross-language codebase, or one of the most important kernel modules FWIW in this case, certainly does not make things simpler but only more complex - communication-wise, time-wise, resource-wise, uncertainty-wise etc. I think this is pretty clear and not really debatable IMO. The actual question is if that overhead is worth it…

That technical decision has already been made, by Linus: it is acceptable for the purposes of this experiment, and possibly, for good. So objecting on those grounds is a project management issue.

It has certainly not been made simply because of the fact that Linus is not a boss to the people who are contributing or maintaining the code. There was however a decision to have Rust as an experiment in the kernel but not such that it will bend and change the rules and put a technical burden on everyone else. This issue is solely a technical burden and not a good guy vs bad guy, as many Rust developers would like it to appear by cherry picking the comments from the context.

I think you missed the Linus reply on the topic

> How about you accept the fact that maybe the problem is you.

> You think you know better. But the current process works.

> It has problems, but problems are a fact of life. There is no perfect

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#23

Post by talldayo »

gigatexal wrote: post #17
talldayo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good fight was already lost when Apple didn't lift a finger to help. No documentation, no driver code, just an open-enough iBoot interface to flash some code onto. Valiant programmers can take a hack like that pretty far, but at some point they have to ask what they're fighting for. Is Asahi interested in adapting to the norms of the Linux kernel, or do they insist on bending the Linux kernel to meet them? I unde…

The Apple hardware is compelling enough that I think they will keep it up. We are funding them — at least I am trying to

If I poured out a beer for every "compelling" chipset depreciated by the mainline Linux kernel, I'd be going out to buy 6-packs on a weekly basis.

It's a neat initiative, but you should have been preparing for this result since the beginning. No official support means no official support.

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#24

Post by steveklabnik »

menaerus wrote: post #22
steveklabnik wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That technical decision has already been made, by Linus: it is acceptable for the purposes of this experiment, and possibly, for good. So objecting on those grounds is a project management issue.

It has certainly not been made simply because of the fact that Linus is not a boss to the people who are contributing or maintaining the code. There was however a decision to have Rust as an experiment in the kernel but not such that it will bend and change the rules and put a technical burden on everyone else. This issue is solely a technical burden and not a good guy vs bad guy, as many Rust developers would like i…

Linus is not a boss, that's correct, but he is the BDFL. He doesn't always choose to make every decision himself, but the decision to allow Rust in the tree was made by him.

> not such that it will bend and change the rules and put a technical burden on everyone else.

Absolutely. That is very important. We are in agreement here.

> This issue is solely a technical burden

Here are the entirety of the arguments made:

"No rust code in kernel/dma, please" when no Rust code was being added to kernel/dma.

"Keep the wrappers [duplicated in every driver] instead of making life painful for others." and "interfaces to the DMA API should stay in readable C code". He is not responsible for those wrappers, nor for fixing them when the underling APIs change. This is an argument against the existence of a Rust API for DMA in general, on the conceptual grounds that it exists at all, not a technical argument.

"Maintaining multi-language projects is a pain I have no interest in dealing with. If you want to use something that's not C, be that assembly or rust you write to C interfaces and deal with the impedence mismatch yourself as far as I'm concerned." They have already agreed to this.

"If you want to make Linux impossible to maintain due to a cross-language codebase do that in your driver" it was already decided that a cross-language codebase is acceptable in general. That is, it is on technical grounds (though poorly argued), but since a conclusion was come to already, it's no longer a technical argument, it's disagreeing with the process itself.

"The common ground is that I have absolutely no interest in helping to spread a multi-language code base. I absolutely support using Rust in new codebase, but I do not at all in Linux." This is a non-technical argument.

That's it. All of the technical aspects were agreed to. The only other arguments are either about the process in general, or ideological.

> not a good guy vs bad guy,

I do not think He is a bad guy. I think he is being obstructionist on ideological grounds, and does not bring anything new to the table.

> I think you missed the Linus reply on the topic

In this case, Linus is talking to Hector, who is not involved in the patch, nor as far as I know a member of Rust for Linux, though he does support their aims. He purely replied to the social media stuff, and made no comments on the patch or the arguments about it.

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#25

Post by steveklabnik »

talldayo wrote: post #6
gigatexal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they keep up the good fight …

The good fight was already lost when Apple didn't lift a finger to help. No documentation, no driver code, just an open-enough iBoot interface to flash some code onto. Valiant programmers can take a hack like that pretty far, but at some point they have to ask what they're fighting for. Is Asahi interested in adapting to the norms of the Linux kernel, or do they insist on bending the Linux kernel to meet them? I unde…

> I understand their exhaustion, but aiming their frustrations at Linus for having an entirely level-headed response shows that they can't read the room.

I agree that Linus's response wasn't over the top, but Hector didn't quit because of that one email. Heck, as far as I know he wasn't even involved in writing the patch in question. The Asahi folks have had a number of issues dealing with other maintainers for at least the past couple of years. This is a "the straw that broke the camel's back" situation.

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#26

Post by uecker »

pulsartwin wrote: post #15
uecker wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a fair characterization. I think the accusations from the Rust side that the project is "sabotaged" or "non-technical arguments" etc. are a typical symptom of denial. All the hype and enthusiasm related to Rust is that you can just write something easily in C instead of Rust (or rewrite) and then all problems related to safety are solved. And some of those people really believe this nonsense. Th…

I don't entirely disagree with some of your points, however, they are not what the recent discussion has been about. Plainly, a maintainer has unilaterally rejected the addition of rust code to assist with DMA and requested that code be duplicated in every driver (which also ignores the fact that the patch never added rust code to kernel/dma to begin with). It strikes many as strange that the experimental addition of…

I think rejecting code in his area is his right as a maintainer of this area (to the extend this is the case, I haven't checked). Also the patch adds a file kernel/dma.rs so I am confused about your comment. I also happen to agree that maintaining multi-language code is a pain and I understand that he does not want this imposed on him. This may make it harder for Rust kernel developers, but I can not see how this is "sabotage of the project".

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#27

Post by steveklabnik »

uecker wrote: post #26
pulsartwin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't entirely disagree with some of your points, however, they are not what the recent discussion has been about. Plainly, a maintainer has unilaterally rejected the addition of rust code to assist with DMA and requested that code be duplicated in every driver (which also ignores the fact that the patch never added rust code to kernel/dma to begin with). It strikes many as strange that the experimental addition of…

I think rejecting code in his area is his right as a maintainer of this area (to the extend this is the case, I haven't checked). Also the patch adds a file kernel/dma.rs so I am confused about your comment. I also happen to agree that maintaining multi-language code is a pain and I understand that he does not want this imposed on him. This may make it harder for Rust kernel developers, but I can not see how this is…

> (to the extend this is the case, I haven't checked)

It's not his area.

> Also the patch adds a file kernel/dma.rs so I am confused about your comment.

It adds rust/kernel/dma.rs, not kernel/dma. That is, it adds that file here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/rust/kernel not here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/kernel/dma

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#28

Post by uecker »

steveklabnik wrote: post #20
uecker wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a fair characterization. I think the accusations from the Rust side that the project is "sabotaged" or "non-technical arguments" etc. are a typical symptom of denial. All the hype and enthusiasm related to Rust is that you can just write something easily in C instead of Rust (or rewrite) and then all problems related to safety are solved. And some of those people really believe this nonsense. Th…

> I think the accusations from the Rust side that the project is "sabotaged" or "non-technical arguments" etc. are a typical symptom of denial. When someone says > You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this. Against the decision that the project made, that is very straightforwardly sabotage. > All the hype and enthusiasm related to Rust is that you can just write something easily in…

Well, people definitely often claim that Rust solves all memory safety issues (not true) and they also often neglect to carefully distinguish between memory safety and other safety issues (e.g. already in terminology "safe language").

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#29

Post by uecker »

vsgherzi wrote: post #18
uecker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a far better approach to memory safety in C projects is to evolve tools and annotate existing code. It is also not true that everybody moves to Rust and I think the claims about memory safety are overblown (due use of unsafe Rust). In my experience as a observer and contributor of open-source and free software for the last decades, these changes driven by enthusiastic and opinionated small group that try chan…

I agree that memory safety gets over-hyped and is often treated like a silver bullet solution. However, I do believe the problems of memory unsafely to be real and to be a threat (just less than what the popular opinion is). We've tried using static analyzers and C and AI driven detection to limited success, we cannot guarantee correct C code, this is just a hard problem when a project as big and important as the ker…

There are definitely people using static analysis to write memory safe C. This is not really practical though, but getting a reasonable level of memory safety is very much possible using tools and good design. People dismiss this because it is not perfect, but this completely fails to take into account that - in practice - Rust is also far from being memory safe due to use of unsafe.

Whether it was proposed by Linus or not, it still driven by a small amount of people. I do not think it was a good idea from Linus to allow it. I understand the arguments he had, but I think it was a mistake. In the past, he kept the C++ programmers out and I always thought this was a wise decision. And the arguments for C++ were not entirely different, except it was not memory safety but object orientation which was "clearly needed" and "the right way" and everything C is old, obsolete, and wrong. By just saying no he kept this discussions away.

Re: Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

#30

Post by uecker »

steveklabnik wrote: post #27
uecker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think rejecting code in his area is his right as a maintainer of this area (to the extend this is the case, I haven't checked). Also the patch adds a file kernel/dma.rs so I am confused about your comment. I also happen to agree that maintaining multi-language code is a pain and I understand that he does not want this imposed on him. This may make it harder for Rust kernel developers, but I can not see how this is…

> (to the extend this is the case, I haven't checked) It's not his area. > Also the patch adds a file kernel/dma.rs so I am confused about your comment. It adds rust/kernel/dma.rs, not kernel/dma. That is, it adds that file here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/rust/kernel not here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/kernel/dma

If it is not his area, he should have no power to stop it anyway, so it is even more strange to call it "sabotage". Or has any kernel developer the right to nack anything? This seems unlikely to me. So then it is just some disagreement.
Post reply on HN