zlacker

[return to "“Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety"]
1. tialar+yf[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:56:16
>>rvz+(OP)
I don't think I buy Linus' high level claim. It is not necessarily better to press on with the wrong answer, in some cases failure actually is an option and might be much better than oops we did it wrong.

This morning I was reading about the analysis of an incident in which a London tube train drove away with open doors. Nobody was harmed, or even in immediate danger, the train had relatively few passengers and in fact they only finally alerted the driver at the next station, classic British politeness (they made videos, took photographs, but they didn't use the emergency call button until the train got to a station)

Anyway, the underlying cause involves systems which were flooded with critical "I'm failing" messages and would just periodically reboot and then press on. The train had been critically faulty for minutes, maybe even days before the incident, but rather than fail, and go out of service, systems kept trying to press on. The safety systems wouldn't have allowed this failed train to drive with its doors open - but the safety critical mistake to disable safety systems and drive the train anyway wouldn't have happened if the initial failure had caused the train to immediately go out of passenger service instead of limping on for who knows how long.

◧◩
2. flumpc+Wq[view] [source] 2022-10-02 16:55:40
>>tialar+yf
I think it's obvious that Linus is correct here.

For example, say there's a bug in the Linux kernel that would produce a "panic" at midnight Dec 31st 2022... do we accept a billion devices shutting down? In the best case rebooting and resuming a whatever user space program was running?

Despite the bad taste, I think the obvious answer is as Linus says: the Kernel should keep going despite errors.

[go to top]