Greg Kroah-Hartman's post argues that new drivers and kernel modules being written in Rust benefit the entire Linux kernel community. He emphasizes that Rust's memory safety features improve overall kernel stability and security, reducing potential bugs and vulnerabilities for everyone, even those not directly involved with Rust code. This advantage outweighs any perceived downsides like increased code complexity or a steeper learning curve for some developers. The improved safety and resulting stability ultimately reduces maintenance burden and allows developers to focus on new features instead of bug fixes, benefiting the entire ecosystem.
Nvidia's security team advocates shifting away from C/C++ due to its susceptibility to memory-related vulnerabilities, which account for a significant portion of their reported security issues. They propose embracing memory-safe languages like Rust, Go, and Java to improve the security posture of their products and reduce the time and resources spent on vulnerability remediation. While acknowledging the performance benefits often associated with C/C++, they argue that modern memory-safe languages offer comparable performance while significantly mitigating security risks. This shift requires overcoming challenges like retraining engineers and integrating new tools, but Nvidia believes the long-term security gains outweigh the transitional costs.
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the AdaCore blog post's premise that C is a major source of vulnerabilities. Many point to Rust as a viable alternative, highlighting its memory safety features and performance. Some discuss the practical challenges of transitioning away from C, citing legacy codebases, tooling, and the existing expertise surrounding C. Others explore alternative approaches like formal verification or stricter coding standards for C. A few commenters push back on the idea of abandoning C entirely, arguing that its performance benefits and low-level control are still necessary for certain applications, and that focusing on better developer training and tools might be a more effective solution. The trade-offs between safety and performance are a recurring theme.
Bell Labs, celebrating its centennial, represents a century of groundbreaking innovation. From its origins as a research arm of AT&T, it pioneered advancements in telecommunications, including the transistor, laser, solar cell, information theory, and the Unix operating system and C programming language. This prolific era fostered a collaborative environment where scientific exploration thrived, leading to numerous Nobel Prizes and shaping the modern technological landscape. However, the breakup of AT&T and subsequent shifts in corporate focus impacted Bell Labs' trajectory, leading to a diminished research scope and a transition towards more commercially driven objectives. Despite this evolution, Bell Labs' legacy of fundamental scientific discovery and engineering prowess remains a benchmark for industrial research.
HN commenters largely praised the linked PDF documenting Bell Labs' history, calling it well-written, informative, and a good overview of a critical institution. Several pointed out specific areas they found interesting, like the discussion of "directed basic research," the balance between pure research and product development, and the evolution of corporate research labs in general. Some lamented the decline of similar research-focused environments today, contrasting Bell Labs' heyday with the current focus on short-term profits. A few commenters added further historical details or pointed to related resources like the book Idea Factory. One commenter questioned the framing of Bell Labs as primarily an American institution given its reliance on global talent.
Summary of Comments ( 231 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43101204
HN commenters largely agree with Greg KH's assessment of Rust's benefits for the kernel. Several highlight the improved memory safety and the potential for catching bugs early in the development process as significant advantages. Some express excitement about the prospect of new drivers and filesystems written in Rust, while others acknowledge the learning curve for kernel developers. A few commenters raise concerns, including the increased complexity of debugging Rust code in the kernel and the potential performance overhead. One commenter questions the long-term maintenance implications of introducing a new language, wondering if it might exacerbate the already challenging task of maintaining the kernel. Another suggests that the real win will be determined by whether Rust truly reduces the number of CVEs related to memory safety issues in the long run.
The Hacker News post "Greg K-H: "Writing new code in Rust is a win for all of us"" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43101204) has generated a robust discussion with a multitude of comments exploring various facets of Rust's integration into the Linux kernel.
Several commenters express enthusiasm for Rust's potential to improve the kernel's security and reliability, echoing Greg KH's sentiments in the original email. They highlight Rust's memory safety features as a crucial advantage in mitigating vulnerabilities, a persistent challenge in C-based development. Some point out the potential for improved performance due to Rust's compile-time guarantees, reducing the need for runtime checks.
A recurring theme in the comments is the practical consideration of integrating Rust into a large, established C codebase. Commenters discuss the complexities of interfacing between Rust and C, the learning curve for kernel developers accustomed to C, and the potential impact on the kernel's maintainability. Some raise concerns about the long-term implications of supporting two languages within the kernel, while others express optimism that the benefits outweigh the challenges.
Several commenters delve into specific technical aspects of Rust and its suitability for kernel development. Discussions arise around topics such as error handling, memory management strategies, and the potential for Rust to enable new design patterns within the kernel. Some commenters share their own experiences using Rust for systems programming, offering insights into its strengths and weaknesses.
A notable point of discussion revolves around the cultural implications of adopting Rust. Some commenters express concerns about the potential for Rust to create a divide within the kernel development community, with some developers embracing the new language while others remain committed to C. Others argue that the transition to Rust will be a gradual process, allowing for a smooth integration and knowledge transfer within the community.
There's also discussion of the potential impact on driver development. Some commenters suggest that Rust could simplify driver development and improve their reliability, while others express concerns about the added complexity of incorporating Rust into existing driver ecosystems.
Finally, a few comments address the broader implications of Rust's growing adoption in systems programming. They see the Linux kernel's embrace of Rust as a significant validation of the language's potential and anticipate further adoption in other critical systems. Some commenters express hope that this move will inspire further innovation in systems programming languages and tools.