gccrs VS Rust-for-Linux

There is a Rust front-end for GCC that is under active development [1]. If the chip vendors are not willing to develop and upstream a LLVM back-end then they can feel free to start contributing to it.

[1] https://rust-gcc.github.io/

That's why gccrs doesn't even consider lifetime checking a part of the language (they plan to use Polonius, too).

There's ongoing work on a Rust front-end for GCC (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs). Bit barebones right now -- ie, even core doesn't compile -- but there's funding, demand, and regular progress, so it'll only get better from there. Once gccrs can compile core, it should be ready to compile most of Rust, and thus if you've taught the calling conventions for C to GCC, you're golden.

I recommend checking out the GCC Rust frontend project.

That is what theyre refering to, yes. The GitHub is named https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs

- But this misses so much extra context information

3. Macro invocations there are really subtle rules on how you treat macro invocations such as this which is not documented at all https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/blob/master/gcc/rust/expan...

Some day I personally want to write a blog post about how complicated and under spec'd Rust is, then write one about the stuff i do like it such as iterators being part of libcore so i don't need reactive extensions.

(Speaking of which, Rust-GCC (or gcc-rs or gccrs or whichever other of their names they decide is the primary one) isn't even going to be a complete C++ implementation. Their plan is to implement enough to compile Polonius (the NLL 2.0 borrow checker being developed in Rust for rustc) and then share that since borrow-checking isn't necessary for codegen... only to identify and reject invalid programs... making the C++ portion of it not that different in scope from mrustc.)

That bridge will be crossed with gccrs (compiling Rust with gcc directly, coming next month with GCC 13) and rust_codegen_gcc (rustc frontend, GCC backend, works now but just doesn’t yet have an “easy” setup)

Rust is backwards compatible when you stick to stable features, but the kernel uses unstable features that can and do incur breaking changes.

https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/2

> How would this work?

Don't know exactly what you're asking.

> And why would it be a better idea?

Poorly written device drivers are a significant attack vector. It's one of the reasons Linux is now exploring using Rust for its own device drivers.[0] You may be asking -- why Rust and not some other language? Rust has many of the performance and interoperability advantages of C and C++, but as noted, makes certain classes of memory safety issues impossible. Rust also has significant mindshare among systems programming communities.

[0]: https://rust-for-linux.com

Ctrl-F "rust"

https://rust-for-linux.com/ links to LWN articles at https://lwn.net/Kernel/Index/#Development_tools-Rust that suggest that only basic modules are yet possible with the rust support in Linux kernels 6.2 and 6.3.

Rust-for-linux links to the Android binder module though:

> Android Binder Driver: This project is an effort to rewrite Android's Binder kernel driver in Rust.

> Motivation: Binder is one of the most security and performance critical components of Android. Android isolates apps from each other and the system by assigning each app a unique user ID (UID). This is called "application sandboxing", and is a fundamental tenet of the Android Platform Security Model.

> The majority of inter-process communication (IPC) on Android goes through Binder. Thus, memory unsafety vulnerabilities are especially critical when they happen in the Binder driver

... "Rust in the Linux kernel" (2021) https://security.googleblog.com/2021/04/rust-in-linux-kernel... :

> [...] We also need designs that allow code in the two languages to interact with each other: we're particularly interested in safe, zero-cost abstractions that allow Rust code to use kernel functionality written in C, and how to implement functionality in idiomatic Rust that can be called seamlessly from the C portions of the kernel.

> Since Rust is a new language for the kernel, we also have the opportunity to enforce best practices in terms of documentation and uniformity. For example, we have specific machine-checked requirements around the usage of unsafe code: for every unsafe function, the developer must document the requirements that need to be satisfied by callers to ensure that its usage is safe; additionally, for every call to unsafe functions (or usage of unsafe constructs like dereferencing a raw pointer), the developer must document the justification for why it is safe to do so.

> We'll now show how such a driver would be implemented in Rust, contrasting it with a C implementation. [...]

This guide with unsafe rust that calls into the C, and then with next gen much safer rust right next to it would be a helpful resource too.

What of the post-docker container support (with userspaces also written in go) should be cloned to rust first?

Rust-for-Linux issue tracker

Yes, I definitely agree that it's a problem that pr_info implicitly wraps its arguments in unsafe {}. I wrote my own Pull Request with a trival fix.

Note that this template won't work with Linux 6.1, which has very minimal Rust support. You'll want the RustForLinux tree, or maybe Linux 6.2.

You can join Rust for Linux zulip chat by requesting invite using the link in https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux 's README.