Silkenweb Example: Hackernews Clone

Hector Martin – [Patch] Maintainers: Remove Myself

12 points by Reventlov 4 months ago | 52 comments

uecker 4 months ago
Some background:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6OzgBYZNJPr_ZD1@phenom.ffwll.lo...
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wi=ZmP2=TmHsFSUGq8vUZAOWWS...
phendrenad2 4 months ago
This whole thing is, at it's core, an architectural question. It's quite simple: How much should the C code have to change to allow better Rust support?
Despite his position as "Benevolent dictator for life", Linus doesn't really have the chutzpah to stand up and say "we're doing it this way"[1], so these sorts of questions try to get resolved through petty bickering and namecalling instead (which is the opposite of consensus-building and healthy debate and just makes people more entrenched and unwilling to compromise).
[1] - He was already ousted from the project once, I don't think he wants to try it again.
- steveklabnik 4 months ago
  That question as already answered when the experiment was greenlit: it doesn’t have to at all.
  That question is also not what is at the heart of this conflict. It’s someone that categorically rejects the experiment, even though the project has decided to give it a try. It’s entirely social and not technical.
  - menaerus 4 months ago
    The reason is entirely technical and I think it has been formulated clearly - maintaining cross-language codebase, or one of the most important kernel modules FWIW in this case, certainly does not make things simpler but only more complex - communication-wise, time-wise, resource-wise, uncertainty-wise etc. I think this is pretty clear and not really debatable IMO.
    The actual question is if that overhead is worth it and it seems that there is no clear answer on that question despite many Rust-force claiming otherwise. I can totally understand the position of kernel maintainers.
    What I cannot understand is the following shameful, almost unbelievable, act from Hector Martin
    > If shaming on social media does not work, then tell me what does, because I'm out of ideas.
    If there's a single most reason why Rust-in-Linux will fail it is going to be because of the immaturity and entitlement of individuals in Rust community.
    - abacate 4 months ago
      > The reason is entirely technical and I think it has been formulated clearly [..]
      He clearly expressed a technical opinion based on his own beliefs, and that’s all. There was no reasoning.
      He did not even acknowledge the fact that it is going to be maintained separately from the actual generic kernel code (rust/kernel/dma vs kernel/dma).
      Anyone can easily formulate a sentence that seems coherent and correct, but it can be proven completely false in 15 seconds with actual data.
      IOW: just because someone calls it a technical argument it doesn’t make it one.
      This is a matter of opinion - specifically, the opinion of a single person.
      > If there's a single most reason why Rust-in-Linux will fail it is going to be because of the immaturity and entitlement of individuals in Rust community.
      Indeed there was immaturity from several individuals.
      One question: if you act immaturely towards someone and they react immaturely, who's fault is it? The person who reacted or you?
      I do not believe there is a widespread issue of entitlement: if you follow the discussions on the ML and observe how the R4L project has progressed so far, the only "entitlement" that individuals in the R4L project may seem to have in common is the desire to be treated with respect and for discussions to focus on technical arguments.
      For me, this is the bare minimum to be expected.
    - steveklabnik 4 months ago
      That technical decision has already been made, by Linus: it is acceptable for the purposes of this experiment, and possibly, for good. So objecting on those grounds is a project management issue.
  - uecker 4 months ago
    I don't think this is a fair characterization. I think the accusations from the Rust side that the project is "sabotaged" or "non-technical arguments" etc. are a typical symptom of denial. All the hype and enthusiasm related to Rust is that you can just write something easily in C instead of Rust (or rewrite) and then all problems related to safety are solved. And some of those people really believe this nonsense. The real world complexities unsurprisingly do not go away simply by using Rust. The signs are all over: The project is moving very slowly, the very enthusiastic people who move it along with sheer will power get burned out, there also CVEs in Rust code, etc. But if you bought all the Rust arguments and are now invested, it is difficult to accept that the solution of the safety problems is not as simple "rewrite to Rust". So the more immature part of the Rust communities starts to blame politics. Now, I do not want to say that there are not grains of truth in all these points (I do think memory safety is great, I do think that C ecosystem has issues, I agree that there are many good ideas in Rust, and certainly skepticism from others makes it harder to push something forward in a community, etc.), but overall I think it is mostly delusional ideas from Rust folks encountering the real world, and instead of critical self-reflection on what needs to improved both in terms of social aspects of collaboration and maybe also on the technical side, they blame others for sabotaging the project and organize a social media circus to force their ideas on a community (which of course, is super toxic and evil)
    - pulsartwin 4 months ago
      I don't entirely disagree with some of your points, however, they are not what the recent discussion has been about. Plainly, a maintainer has unilaterally rejected the addition of rust code to assist with DMA and requested that code be duplicated in every driver (which also ignores the fact that the patch never added rust code to kernel/dma to begin with). It strikes many as strange that the experimental addition of rust-based drivers (greenlit by Linus orignally) has come to a head in this way:
      "The common ground is that I have absolutely no interest in helping to spread a multi-language code base. I absolutely support using Rust in new codebase, but I do not at all in Linux."
    - steveklabnik 4 months ago
      > I think the accusations from the Rust side that the project is "sabotaged" or "non-technical arguments" etc. are a typical symptom of denial.
      When someone says
      > You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this.
      Against the decision that the project made, that is very straightforwardly sabotage.
      > All the hype and enthusiasm related to Rust is that you can just write something easily in C instead of Rust (or rewrite) and then all problems related to safety are solved.
      You cannot accuse others of being hyperbolic and then be so yourself. No serious person claims that it’s easy or that it solves all issues.
      I don’t really even want to engage with this rest of this post, honestly it says more about you than about Rust.
  - phendrenad2 4 months ago
    > That question as already answered when the experiment was greenlit: it doesn’t have to at all
    Where? And in light of the ongoing infighting and lack of clear parameters, do you think that was truly sufficient?
    - steveklabnik 4 months ago
      When the Rust for Linux experiment was approved.
      It was sufficient, but that doesn’t prevent people from acting in bad faith. Which is what is happening here.
vsgherzi 4 months ago
It is what it is... However if you want volunteers to contribute to the kernel and introduce rust as a way to get more people to join this looks pretty bad... I'm sure stuff will figure itself out in the long run it's just sad that the discourse exists at all. I guess the linux kernel will never transition to memory safety via a new language? Idk what else can be done.
- uecker 4 months ago
  Well, I very much hope that the Linux kernel will never transition to Rust. The language is far too complex for my taste. IMHO Rust people should just build their own kernels and if those are better they can replace Linux just like the C++ microkernels did.
  - vsgherzi 4 months ago
    The complaints I have with rust are going to be on the async side. We need memory safety in the kernel, it dosen't have to be majority but having vital parts in rust could be a game changer. The kernel must evolve, all players are moving this way. Swift is being introduced into Darwin, Rust into Windows. Memory safety is not a fad and the only tangible options right now is rust. Swift could be interesting but creates other problems, zig is not 100% safe, and carbon is vapor ware. Could there be something better than rust? Yes. Do I think rust can be annoying at times? Absolutely... But the way I look at it, we don't have another shot.
    - uecker 4 months ago
      I think a far better approach to memory safety in C projects is to evolve tools and annotate existing code. It is also not true that everybody moves to Rust and I think the claims about memory safety are overblown (due use of unsafe Rust). In my experience as a observer and contributor of open-source and free software for the last decades, these changes driven by enthusiastic and opinionated small group that try change how existing projects work are very dangerous and often contraproductive both in terms of technical and social risks for the projects. It is far better to start alternative projects that compete on their own merits and if the techniques are truly superior, then those will eventually be competitive. Going into existing projects and changing them according to "opinions" is a really bad idea.
pulsartwin 4 months ago
This is a remarkably disappointing end to Hellwig's original NACK, yet entirely expected based on the recent treatment of R4L devs.
talldayo 4 months ago
Another for the pile of reverse-engineered devicetrees that started downstream, tried to negotiate with upstream and ended up realizing the futility of it all. Godspeed, may your path to depreciation be slow and painless.
- gigatexal 4 months ago
  I hope they keep up the good fight …
  - talldayo 4 months ago
    The good fight was already lost when Apple didn't lift a finger to help. No documentation, no driver code, just an open-enough iBoot interface to flash some code onto. Valiant programmers can take a hack like that pretty far, but at some point they have to ask what they're fighting for. Is Asahi interested in adapting to the norms of the Linux kernel, or do they insist on bending the Linux kernel to meet them?
    I understand their exhaustion, but aiming their frustrations at Linus for having an entirely level-headed response shows that they can't read the room. This is the Linux project, you're going to have problems merging enormous codebases that reverse-engineer poorly understood hardware. I support Rust in the Linux kernel, but this is the kind of envoy that will spoil the effort.
    - steveklabnik 4 months ago
      > I understand their exhaustion, but aiming their frustrations at Linus for having an entirely level-headed response shows that they can't read the room.
      I agree that Linus's response wasn't over the top, but Hector didn't quit because of that one email. Heck, as far as I know he wasn't even involved in writing the patch in question. The Asahi folks have had a number of issues dealing with other maintainers for at least the past couple of years. This is a "the straw that broke the camel's back" situation.
    - gigatexal 4 months ago
      The Apple hardware is compelling enough that I think they will keep it up. We are funding them — at least I am trying to
4 months ago