From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at (mailrelay.tugraz.at [129.27.2.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81941DACA1 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:11:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=129.27.2.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740298266; cv=none; b=KyfRU40w9wpluTbFPt3jA8DSdhfh/kuKbUXrRsv7+ef+osZI6WjZZJhgHx+XGmnK4ZnDZetZ+GQE/ulzQ6j9tM5HUbRNNY1MaJG3lFnKKrwCAsRW5GxUfRfgvlAsr26Gj0fLLAGZoIKu/RJD+A88LtC0KGEri3Qwg/ERAE1Qb4M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740298266; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FO+ewNzs077bRy2Y7BPoaLABNBn813HrzRSMC+/zC0k=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=jH+zAWGSNMzTWzui5KXLtx0k5Y0UoNHEgd8aoWj4/kBu+p/93lkd50lapaAlUIUZ+1WVNqN8mlxb44WiCAU3sejTINfaNhPsXxYiWgFrugzcfVaoaisQITaZuoIeWj1WJwYLkClMm4b6xKBpDrUThTlOFEM1u6X3qEfOteRfvic= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=tugraz.at; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tugraz.at; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tugraz.at header.i=@tugraz.at header.b=WWaxrVTl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=129.27.2.202 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=tugraz.at Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tugraz.at Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tugraz.at header.i=@tugraz.at header.b="WWaxrVTl" Received: from vra-172-163.tugraz.at (vra-172-163.tugraz.at [129.27.172.163]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Z0xPt52wlz3wPk; Sun, 23 Feb 2025 09:10:42 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1740298243; bh=LMpP0PNtOPYY2TeGglWfTOfZrmn0PHBp00YQa8N0dVk=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=WWaxrVTlShi5aCaXfkcSEkDelV6036VV/oNtbKakqH03VZVZYTc3GFTPaFa99E4el ZUAraMwFNo4xw9OMfOsfxb1kb3gugsitbKKxS84yJVUcBerX5HOFCJHl4mIdozvyv/ +K9dPq1pzYQ04yJ4MfUZBxhYyD5/PFVg2BotrTHQ= Message-ID: <06a07d325f7555c3dc72e4aac90580541ca61697.camel@tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Rust kernel policy From: Martin Uecker To: Piotr =?UTF-8?Q?Mas=C5=82owski?= Cc: Greg KH , Boqun Feng , "H. Peter Anvin" , Miguel Ojeda , Christoph Hellwig , rust-for-linux , Linus Torvalds , David Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 09:10:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <326CC09B-8565-4443-ACC5-045092260677@zytor.com> <2025021954-flaccid-pucker-f7d9@gregkh> <4e316b01634642cf4fbb087ec8809d93c4b7822c.camel@tugraz.at> <2025022024-blooper-rippling-2667@gregkh> <1d43700546b82cf035e24d192e1f301c930432a3.camel@tugraz.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TUG-Backscatter-control: G/VXY7/6zeyuAY/PU2/0qw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: 0.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.116 Am Sonntag, dem 23.02.2025 um 00:42 +0100 schrieb Piotr Mas=C5=82owski: > On Thu Feb 20, 2025 at 9:57 AM CET, Martin Uecker wrote: ... >=20 > Oh, and once again: I am sure you knew all of this. It's just that a lot > of people reading these threads think adding a few annotations here and > there will be enough to achieve a similar level of safety | robustness > as what newly-designed languages can offer. I have been looking at programming languages, safety,=C2=A0 and type theory for a long time, even before Rust existed. I heard all these arguments and I do not believe that we=C2=A0 need (or should use) a newly-designed language. (Of course, adding annotations would not usually be enough, one often would have to refactor the code a bit, but if it is already well designed, not too much) But while I would love discussing this more, I do not=C2=A0 think this is the right place for these discussion nor would it be insightful in the current situation. In any case, there is so much existing C code that it should be clear that we also have to do something about it. So I do not think the question is even that relevant.=20 Martin