Hi Bart, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> writes: > On 3/14/24 05:14, Philipp Stanner wrote: >> On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 11:02 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: [...] >> One of the stronger arguments behind the push for Rust is that the >> language by design forces you to obey, because otherwise the compiler >> will just reject building. > > Rust has a very significant disadvantage that memory-safe C/C++ won't > have: supporting Rust means adding Rust bindings for all C functions > called from Rust code. This forces everyone who wants to change an > interface to also change the Rust bindings and hence will make it > harder to maintain the Linux kernel in its entirety. I think you might be missing a key point here. We actually generate Rust bindings to the existing C kernel automatically. No hand editing required, except for some corner cases we currently have with static methods and certain macros. If we just wanted to call the C APIa directly, there would be no engineering required. The main reason to deploy Rust would also go away, we might as well stay in C. The actual engineering effort goes into building memory safe versions of the C APIs. This requirement will not magically go away, no matter what memory safe language (or language extensions) your use to interface the existing unsafe C APIs. Best regards, Andreas
