Hacker News Reader

Comment by johncolanduoni | Hacker News Reader

What number of CVEs is Rust kernel code allowed to have before we have good evidence it’s a categorical failure? Do you turn off KASLR for your Linux machines because there exist CVEs it doesn’t protect against?

View on HN

As long as the kernel will be developed, there will be CVEs - even with Rust. So at what point the number is so high that we should drop Rust and move to formal verification? And even then, there will be CVEs... This whole argument is nonsense.

But I also do not agree that memory safety is of much higher importance than other issues. Memory safety is highly critical if you have a monopolistic walled garden spyware ecosystem - such as Android. Not that I do not want memory safety, but the people I know who got hacked, did not get hacked because of memory safety issue, but because of weak passwords or unpatched software. And at least the later problems gets harder with Rust...

Your priorities do not match that of most kernel developers or most operators of network-connected Linux systems (even if we ignore Android). So I don’t think your problem is with Rust at all, you’ll need to fork Linux if you want the project to stop putting huge amounts of effort into memory safety (as it has for decades).

You are right, I do not have a problem with Rust as a language nor with the kernel improving memory safety. My issue is solely with exaggerated claims and aggressive marketing of Rust.

(And I am operating network-connected Linux devices since 30 years myself. Memory safety is not the known issue, at the moment I worry more about limited security updates due to Rust.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com