so, what's exactly the purpose of this retardation.>10x more resources to compile the same LoC as C>10x the vulnerabilities>safe(tm)>effective(tm)CVE-2026-90147CVE-2026-98938CVE-2026-89764that's just linux in the last 2 weekslook this one from chromeCVE-2026-87528>Type confusion in Rust in Google Chrome on on Windows prior to 153.0.8010.36 allowed a remote attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
>>110194926>so, what's exactly the purpose of this retardationNo purpose. Now that Linus is in the LLM hype train, he can probably replace all the Rust in the kernel with plain good old C. Rust trannies on suicide watch.
>>110194926>so, what's exactly the purpose of this retardation.making a CVE so notable an even that it requires a retard to post about it
>>110194926> CVE-2026-90147> logic flaw in C code caught by dev reviewing Rust bindings> CVE-2026-98938> legacy initialization race where Rust code called into a poorly behaved C backend macro (request_irq())tell me, OP, of all the CVEs being reported for the kernel every week now, how many of them are C?
request_irq()
>>110195442>how many of them are C?the rest of them.in case you didn't know, CVEs are not github/gitlab MRs where you are assigned to review.This is reviewed rust code that made it into the kernel.isn't rust supposed to solve these problems?
>>110195643>put rust code with c code>c code shits the bed and calls the wrong rust code>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RUST IS INSECURE SHIT
>>110195643of all the Rust CVEs associated with the kernel so far, only one stands out to me as the "memory bug" (CVE-2025-68260), and that was in an unsafe block that the compiler couldnt prove was safe. that prompted people to review unsafe blocks with more scrutinywhy dont you read the CVEs properly rather than filtering through them with "rust", dumbass
>>110196005>>110196192rtfm before blaming, rustards>>110194926>Type confusion in RustI especially like this one. did the language got confused? did the rustard got confused?doesn't matter, just blame other languages.>>110196192>that was in an unsafe blockso we are now regressing to writing non-rust, just C but with a shittier syntax and from incompetent trannies.
>>110196409> "so now were writing C but shittier syntax"how else is Rust supposed to interact with C without checking the rust memory-safety model Anon? is this implicit cope because Anon cannot accept rust as second kernel language? which means Anon cannot accept unsafe being used to bridge the C ABI? so that when someone makes a memory-safety bug, Anon can throw a fit? is that right Anon? are you feeling bad?
