zlacker

[return to "“Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety"]
1. MarkSw+K4[view] [source] 2022-10-02 14:54:55
>>rvz+(OP)
Why is panicing in the kernel on an error not an option? Like kernels can write a core dump and reboot, right?
◧◩
2. zetapo+E5[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:00:42
>>MarkSw+K4
Yeah ... Just reboot the machine and make me loose all my work, bro.
◧◩◪
3. charci+Vd[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:46:40
>>zetapo+E5
This is why programs automatically saving their state is important.
◧◩◪◨
4. jmull+Ql[view] [source] 2022-10-02 16:29:20
>>charci+Vd
That's not a solution to OS instability.

Reliably saving state in the face of sudden total failure is both very tricky and app-specific. Just saving state changes automatically won't do it -- partial writes of complex state are likely to be inconsistent without luck or careful design and QA controls (tests, testing, on-going controls to ensure nothing new operates or relies on anything outside the safe state-saving mechanism).

It makes a lot more sense to put the effort into making the OS continue as well as it can, vs requiring every app to harden itself against sudden total failures.

[go to top]