zlacker

>>rvz+(OP)
I know next to nothing about kernel programming, but I'm not sure here what Linus' objection to the comment he is responding to here is.

The comment seemed to be making reference to rust's safety guarantees about undefined behaviour like use after free.

Linus' seems to have a completely different definition of "safey" that conflates allocation failures, indexing out of bounds, and division by zero with memory safety. Rust makes no claims about those problems, and the comment clearly refers to undefined behaviour. Obviously, those other problems are real problems, but just not ones that Rust claims to solve.

Edit: Reading the chain further along, it increasingly feels like Linus is aruging against a strawman.

>>a_hume+h4
I am probably wrong but I understood that “safety meaning panic” is noeither “safe” not allowed in the Linux kernel because the kernel must not panic when an error arises.

>>pfortu+Y4
Which is why Rust has been accommodating the kernel by adding non-panic versions of the functions that Linus has been complaining about (namely that memory allocation is infallible, because that isn't an unreasonable thing to assume in applicationc code.). Still doesn't change the fact that "safe" in this context has a technical meaning, and what Linus is describing isn't that.

>>a_hume+i6
The issue that Linus is probably coming from is that many Rust aficionados evangelize for Rust as if the very specific technical meaning of “safe” in Rust was the generic meaning of “safe”. For those who understand the limitations and the trade-offs, that can be quite tiresome.