←back to thread

169 points signa11 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
smodo ◴[] No.41875908[source]
I’m not very well versed in kernel development. But I am a Rust dev and have observed the discussion about Rust in Linux with interest… Having said that, this part of the article has me baffled:

>> implementing these features for a smart-pointer type with a malicious or broken Deref (the trait that lets a programmer dereference a value) implementation could break the guarantees Rust relies on to determine when objects can be moved in memory. (…) [In] keeping with Rust's commitment to ensuring safe code cannot cause memory-safety problems, the RFC also requires programmers to use unsafe (specifically, implementing an unsafe marker trait) as a promise that they've read the relevant documentation and are not going to break Pin.

To the uninformed this seems like crossing the very boundary that you wanted Rust to uphold? Yes it’s only an impl Trait but still… I can hear the C devs now. ‘We pinky promise to clean up after our mallocs too!’

replies(7): >>41875965 #>>41876037 #>>41876088 #>>41876177 #>>41876213 #>>41876426 #>>41877004 #
1. remram ◴[] No.41876213[source]
I think the part that uses `unsafe` and can break Pin if done wrong is the implementation of the smart-pointer type, not its use.