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."
The kernel is mostly written in C, by C developers… understandably they’re rather refactor C code to make it better instead of rewritting everything in the current fancy language that’ll save the world this time (especially considering proponents of said language always, at every chance they get, sell it as C is crap, this is better).
Linux is over 30yo and keeps getting better and more stable, that’s the power of open-source.
C is crap for anything where security matters. I’ll happily take that debate with anyone who thinks differently.
Do you believe C isn’t crap when it comes to security? Please explain why and I’ll happily debate you.
/fw hacker, reverse engineer
I think most people would agree with you, but that isn’t really the issue. Rather the question is where the threshold for rewriting in Rust vs maintaining in C lies. Rewriting in any language is costly and error-prone, so at what point do the benefits outweigh that cost and risk? For a legacy, battle-tested codebase (possibly one of the most widely tested codebases out there), the benefit is probably on the lower side.
No idea what you’re being downvoted. Just take a look at all the critical CVSS scored vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel over the past decade. They’re all overwhelmingly due to pitfalls of the C language - they’re rarely architectural issues but instead because some extra fluff wasn’t added to double check the size of an int or a struct etc resulting in memory corruption. Use after frees, out of bounds reads, etc.
These are pretty much wiped out entirely by Rust and caught at compile time (or at runtime with a panic).
The cognitive load of writing safe C, and the volume of extra code it requires, is the problem of C.
You can write safe C, if you know what you’re doing (but as shown by the volume of vulns, even the world’s best C programmers still make slip ups).
Rust forces safe® code without any of the cognitive load of C and without having to go out of your way to learn it and religiously implement it.
The cognitive load of writing safe C, and the volume of extra code it requires, is the problem of C.
Oh no, i’m having a meltdown with all the cognitive load…
Build all the fancy tools you want. At the end of the day if you put a monkey at the wheel of a Ferrari you’ll still have problems.
Nice that Rust is memory-safe, use it if you want, but why the insistence on selling Rust via C is crap? Doesn’t earn you any points.
How about rustaceans fork the kernel and once it’s fully Rust-only then try and get it to be used instead of the current one… win-win, eh?
They’re being downvoted because it’s a silly comment that is basically unrelated and also extremely unhelpful. Everyone can agree that C has footguns and isn’t memory safe, but writing a kernel isn’t memory safe. A kernel written in Rust will have tons of unsafe, just look at Redox: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aredox-os%2Fkernel unsafe&type=code That doesn’t mean it isn’t safer, even in kernel space, but the issues with introducing Rust into the kernel, which is already written in C and a massive project, are more nuanced than “C bad”. The religious “C bad” and “C good” arguments are kinda exactly the issue on display in the OP.
I say this as someone who writes mostly Rust instead of C and is in favor of Rust in the kernel.
C is crap for anything where security matters.
True for people misusing it. If you want to argue the ease of mis-use, it’s a fun talk.
Yea, it’s not C that is crap, but that it has zero guard rails. Like blaming a knife for not having a guard… Is it a bad knife without a guard? Depends on how sharp it is. The guard is orthogonal to the knife’s purpose, but might still be important when the knife is used.
Just because something doesn’t help prevent accidents does not mean it cannot serve its actual purpose well, unless its actual purpose is safety.
Agree. I’m an absolutely awesome software dev myself - and I know C by heart (being my favorite language after assembler). However, with age comes humility and the ability to recognize that I will write buggy code every now and then.
Better the language saves me when I can’t, in security critical situations.
such a weird dichotomy in Windows – secure kernel space and privacy-nightmare user space … “we’re the only ones allowed to steal your data”
This sounds exactly like the type of nontechnical nonsense they’re complaining about: attacking a strawman (“they’re trying to prevent people from refactoring C code and making them rewrite everything in the current fancy language”) even after explicitly calling out that that was not going to happen (“and to reiterate, no one is trying force anyone else to learn Rust nor prevent refactorings of C code”).
They said it wasn’t going to happen but their plan will result in it happening, how do you square that?
You tell me how it will result in it happening. Who even has the power to force people to learn Rust?
Oof, that video… I don’t have enough patience to put up with that sort of thing either. I wonder how plausible a complete Rust fork of the kernel would be.
It’s always been this way. Except that it was kernel developers arguing with kernel developers over C code. Now it’s relative newcomers arguing with kernel developers over Rust code that the kernel devs don’t necessarily care about. Of course it’s going to be a mess.
A fork is of course possible, but operating systems are huge and very complex, you really don’t want to alienate these folks that have been doing exclusively this for 30 years. It would be hard to keep the OS commercially viable with a smaller group and having to do both the day to day maintenance, plus the rewrite. It’s already difficult as it is currently.
Rust will be a huge success in time, long after the current names have lost their impetus. This is not a “grind for 4 years and it’s done” project.
folks that have been doing this exclusively for 30 years
And yet the number of people I hear “just switch to Linux!” When the other person has been using Windows for 30 years blows my mind.
Inertia is a hell of a drug.
I wouldn’t tell a Windows developer with 30 years experience to just switch to developing for Linux.
Users are different. Most people who have used Windows for 30 years never touch anything outside of the desktop, taskbar and Explorer.
That person in the audience was really grinding my gears. Just let the folks you’re talking to answer you; no need to keep going on your diatribe when it’s based on a false assumption and waste the whole room’s time.
There is a fully Rust based Unix-like OS out there, it’s called Redox and it’s very cool
It’s also a microkernel and intentional not POSIX compliant (but it’s close to compliant). I like the project, but it’s very experimental on purpose, so we should set our expectations accordingly. I’d love to see it become a success, but it may not be or it may only be successful in a smaller niche than the current Linux ecosystem.
That said, it seems very open to new contributors. I hope more people can help it along.
I wonder how plausible a complete Rust fork of the kernel would be.
It sounds highly impractical, and it would probably introduce more issues than Rust solves, even if there were enough people with enough free time to do it. Any change must be evolutionary if it’s going to be achievable.
NOT a fork of Linux, but Redox is aiming for a Unix-like OS based on Rust – but even with “source compatibility” with Linux/BSD and drivers being in userspace, my guess would be hardware drivers are still going to be a big speed bump
All you need nowadays for a decent Unix-like is compatibility with a handful of Linux softwares and a web browser. Hell, if you could get WINE working on your kernel you could maybe support as many Windows apps/games as Linux for free.
The big issue, as I see it, is performant drivers for a wide range of hardware. That doesn’t come easy, but I wonder if that can be addressed in a way I’m too inexperienced to know.
But projects like Redox are a genuine threat to the hegemony of Linux - if memory safety isn’t given the true recognition it deserves, projects like Redox serve to be the same disrupting force as Linux once was for UNIX.
Redox also takes some inspiration from Plan9 and https://doc.redox-os.org/book/ch05-00-schemes-resources.html is interesting. Also reading https://drewdevault.com/2022/11/12/In-praise-of-Plan-9.html made me a bit more interested in things trying to be more Plan9-like than Unix-like.
There’s certainly a history of Unix and Unix-like forks; which is rather simple compared to the Linux distro forks (go right to the big pic).
Video url:
At the cost of sounding naive and stupid, wouldn’t it be possible to improve compilers to not spew out unsafe executables? Maybe as a compile time option so people have time to correct the source.
the semantics of C make that virtually impossible. the compiler would have to make some semantics of the language invalid, invalidating patterns that are more than likely highly utilized in existing code, thus we have Rust, which built its semantics around those safety concepts from the beginning. there’s just no way for the compiler to know the lifetime of some variables without some semantic indication
At the cost of sounding naive and stupid
It may be a naive question, but it’s a very important naive question. Naive doesn’t mean bad.
The answer is that that is not possible, because the compiler is supposed to translate the very specific language of C into mostly very specific machine instructions. The programmers who wrote the code, did so because they usually expect a very specific behavior. So, that would be broken.
But also, the “unsafety” is in the behavior of the system and built into the language and the compiler.
It’s a bit of a flawed comparison, but you can’t build a house on a foundation of wooden poles, because of the advantages that wood offers, and then complain that they are flammable. You can build it in steel, but you have to replace all of the poles. Just the poles on the left side won’t do.
And you can’t automatically detect the unsafe parts and just patch those either. If we could, we could just fix them directly or we could automatically transpile them. Darpa is trying that at the moment.
Modern C compilers have a lot of features you can use to check for example for memory errors. Rusts borrow-checker is much stricter as it’s designed to be part of the language, but for low-level code like the Linux kernel you’ll end up having to use Rust’s unsafe feature on a lot of code to do things from talking to actual hardware to just implementing certain data structures and then Rust is about as good as C.
The problem is that C is a prehistoric language and don’t have any of the complex types for example. So, in a modern language you create a String. That string will have a length, and some well defined properties (like encoding and such). With C you have a char * , which is just a pointer to the memory that contains bytes, and hopefully is null terminated. The null termination is defined, but not enforced. Any encoding is whatever the developer had in mind. So the compiler just don’t have the information to make any decisions. In rust you know exactly how long something lives, if something try to use it after that, the compiler can tell you. With C, all lifetimes lives in the developers head, and the compiler have no way of knowing. So, all these typing and properties of modern languages, are basically the implementation of your suggestion.
I’d like to add that there’s a difference between unsafe and unspecified behavior. Sometimes I’d like the compiler to produce my unsafe code that has specified behavior. In this case, I want the compiler to produce exactly that unsafe behavior that was specified according to the language semantics.
Especially when developing a kernel or in an embedded system, an example would be code that references a pointer from a hardcoded constant address. Perhaps this code then performs pointer arithmetic to access other addresses. It’s clear what the code should literally do, but it’s quite an unsafe thing to do unless you as the developer have some special knowledge that you know the address is accessible and contains data that makes sense to be processed in such a manner. This can be the case when interacting directly with registers representing some physical device or peripheral, but of course, there’s nothing in the language that would suggest doing this is safe. It’s making dangerous assumptions that are not enforced as part of the program. Those assumptions are only true in the program is running on the hardware that makes this a valid thing to do, where that magical address and offsets to that address do represent something I can read in memory.
Of course, pointer arithmetic can be quite dangerous, but I think the point still stands that behavior can be specified and unsafe in a sense.
This has been done to a limited extent. Some compilers can check for common cases and you can enforce these warnings as errors. However, this is generally not possible as others have described because the language itself has behaviors that are not safe, and too much code relies on those properties that are fundamentally unsafe.
3min 30s, sample for context
If you keep watching for 10 minutes, it’s an interesting discussion. Too bad they had to cut it short due to time.
