[green_on_black]

I mostly agree, but I think I would have read the comment differently. I've seen C++ people have a strong distaste towards Rust for various reasons and don't exactly care too much about the "memory safety" part. Which is... unfortunate. So while it might be "beating a dead horse", the horse isn't even dead.

[AshamedCaptain]

In fairness, a shitton of these issues would be solved by following C++ patterns like RAII, instead of the defer/gotos style the kernel seems to be proud of.

[kramerger]

This is kernel space, not userspace.

Rusts memory safety is not a 100% protection here.

[AshamedCaptain]

Rust's memory safety is never a 100% thing, but that is no argument, as long as it's a significant enough improvement...

[kramerger]

Let me explain: in the kernel memory is not always simply "memory".

Sometimes writing to a memory you own has huge side effects. And that part is not handled by rust.

[hardware2win]

You're right.

People need to be aware how mem. safety affects security in critical software like Chromium or Microsoft's.

[e2le]

Perhaps instead we could train an ML model to find these use-after-free bugs?