this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
517 points (98.7% liked)

Linux

48685 readers
384 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
517
One Of The Rust Linux Kernel Maintainers Steps Down - Cites "Nontechnical Nonsense" (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 3 months ago by pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org to c/linux@lemmy.ml
223 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Wedson Almeida Filho is a Microsoft engineer who has been prolific in his contributions to the Rust for the Linux kernel code over the past several years. Wedson has worked on many Rust Linux kernel features and even did a experimental EXT2 file-system driver port to Rust. But he's had enough and is now stepping away from the Rust for Linux efforts.

From Wedon's post on the kernel mailing list:

I am retiring from the project. After almost 4 years, I find myself lacking the energy and enthusiasm I once had to respond to some of the nontechnical nonsense, so it's best to leave it up to those who still have it in them.

...

I truly believe the future of kernels is with memory-safe languages. I am no visionary but if Linux doesn't internalize this, I'm afraid some other kernel will do to it what it did to Unix.

Lastly, I'll leave a small, 3min 30s, sample for context here: https://youtu.be/WiPp9YEBV0Q?t=1529 -- and to reiterate, no one is trying force anyone else to learn Rust nor prevent refactorings of C code."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 107 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Ted Ts'o is a prick with a god complex. I understand his experience is hard to match, we all have something in our lives we're that good at, but that does not need to lead to acting like a fucking religious fanatic.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 140 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I understand his experience is hard to match, we all have something in our lives we're that good at

At some point, that mix of experience and ego becomes a significant liability. He's directly hurting the adoption of Rust in the kernel, while the C code he's responsible for is full of problems that would have been impossible if written in safe Rust.

CVE-2024-42304 — crash from undocumented function parameter invariants
CVE-2024-40955 — out of bounds read
CVE-2024-0775 — use-after-free
CVE-2023-2513 — use-after-free
CVE-2023-1252 — use-after-free
CVE-2022-1184 — use-after-free
CVE-2020-14314 — out of bounds read
CVE-2019-19447 — use-after-free
CVE-2018-10879 — use-after-free
CVE-2018-10878 — out of bounds write
CVE-2018-10881 — out of bounds read
CVE-2015-8324 — null pointer dereference
CVE-2014-8086 — race condition
CVE-2011-2493 — call function pointer in uninitialized struct
CVE-2009-0748 — null pointer dereference

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 56 points 3 months ago

Dude, three CVEs were enough. Stop kicking the blood puddle.

[–] Flipper@feddit.org 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

crash from undocumented function parameter invariants

My favourite, as that was the exact point the dev was making in his talk, that the stuff is badly documented and that the function signature would document it perfectly.

[–] WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

My favorite, as that is the exact point made by anti-rust people.

What kind of type signature would prove the first block of any directory in an ext4 filesystem image isn't a hole?

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The first directory block is a hole. But type == DIRENT, so no error is reported. After that, we get a directory block without '.' and '..' but with a valid dentry. This may cause some code that relies on dot or dotdot (such as make_indexed_dir()) to crash

The problem isn't that the block is a hole. It's that the downstream function expects the directory block to contain . and .., and it gets given one without because of incorrect error handling.

You can encode the invariant of "has dot and dot dot" using a refinement type and smart constructor. The refined type would be a directory block with a guarantee it meets that invariant, and an instance of it could only be created through a function that validates the invariant. If the invariant is met, you get the refined type. If it isn't, you only get an error.

This doesn't work in C, but in languages with stricter type systems, refinement types are a huge advantage.

[–] WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it still crash when the smart constructor was called?

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If it were poorly designed and used exceptions, yes. The correct way to design smart constructors is to not actually use a constructor directly but instead use a static method that forces the caller to handle both cases (or explicitly ignore the failure case). The static method would have a return type that either indicates "success and here's the refined type" or "error and this is why."

In Rust terminology, that would be a Result<T, Error>.

For Go, it would be (*RefinedType, error) (where dereferencing the first value without checking it would be at your own peril).

C++ would look similar to Rust, but it doesn't come as part of the standard library last I checked.

C doesn't have the language-level features to be able to do this. You can't make a refined type that's accessible as a type while also making it impossible to construct arbitrarily.

[–] WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can do that in C, too.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You're going to need to cite that.

I'm not familiar with C23 or many of the compiler-specific extensions, but in all the previous versions I worked with, there is no type visibility other than "fully exposed" or opaque and dangerous (void*).

You could try wrapping your Foo in

typedef struct {
    Foo validated
} ValidFoo;

But nothing stops someone from being an idiot about it and constructing it by hand:

ValidFoo trustMeBro;
trustMeBro.validated = someFoo;
otherFunction(trustMeBro);

Or even just casting it.

Foo* someFoo;
otherFunction((ValidFoo*) someFoo);
[–] WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, this is like not checking an error code.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

That's not the point, though. The point is to use a nominal type that asserts an invariant and make it impossible to create an instance of said type which violates the invariant.

Both validation functions and refinement types put the onus on the caller to ensure they're not passing invalid data around, but only refinement types can guarantee it. Humans are fallible, and it's easy to accidentally forget to put a check_if_valid() function somewhere or assume that some function earlier in the call stack did it for you.

With smart constructors and refinement types, the developer literally can't pass an unvalidated type downstream by accident.

[–] aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago

What kind of type signature would prove the first block of any directory in an ext4 filesystem image isn’t a hole?

I don't know if the type system proves it's not a hole, but the type system certainly seems to force consumers to contend with the possibility by surfacing the outcomes at the type system level. That's what the Either is doing in the example's return type, is it not?

fn get_or_create_inode(
    &self,
    ino: Ino
) -> Result<Either<ARef<Inode<T>>, inode::New<T>>>
[–] IAmNotACat@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago

Agreed. His experience might be useful if he were there to engage, but he’s clearly not. It seems like he just wanted to shout down the project and it seems like he was somewhat successful.

[–] qqq@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

No intention of validating that behavior, it's uncalled for and childish, but I think there is another bit of "nontechnical nonsense" on the opposite side of this silly religious war: the RIIR crowd. Longstanding C projects (sometimes even projects written in dynamic languages...?) get people that know very little about the project, or at least have never contributed, asking for it to be rewritten or refactored in Rust, and that's likely just as tiring as the defensive C people when you want to include Rust in the kernel.

People need to chill out on both sides of this weird religious war. A programming language is just a tool: its merits in a given situation should be discussed logically.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I imagine this mentality is frustrating because of how many times they have to explain that they weren't forcing people to learn Rust and that the Rust bindings were second class citizens. They never said to rewrite the kernel in Rust.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's disengenuous though.

  • We're not forcing you to learn rust. We'll just place code in your security critical project in a language you don't know.

  • Rust is a second class citizen, but we feel rust is the superior language and all code should eventually benefit from it's memory safety.

  • We're not suggesting that code needs to be rewritten in rust, but the Linux kernel development must internalise the need for memory safe languages.

No other language community does what the rust community does. Haskellers don't go to the Emacs project and say "We'd like to write Emacs modules, but we think Haskell is a much nicer and safer functional language than Lisp, so how about we add the capability of using Haskell and Lisp?". Pythonistas didn't add Python support to Rails along side Ruby.

Rusties seem to want to convert everyone by Trojan horsing their way into communities. It's extremely damaging, both to those communities and to rust itself.

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

It doesn't help that the Rust community tends to bring extremely divisive politics with it in places and ways that just don't need to happen, starting battles that aren't even tangentially related to programming.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

That is the most sensible look into this so far.

[–] dino@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Who is Ted Ts' in this context?

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 months ago

He's the guy you hear vexing rust in the video posted. While both languages have their pros and cons, he chooses to just blast this other guy by repeating the same crap over and over without letting him reply. Basically the kind of person with a "I win because I'm louder" demeanor.