Re: [TOPIC 01/11] Rust

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 24, 2024, 15:30 UTC
Message-ID: <18d732da-ad34-4a45-b59f-cf2cb3c7238b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <00a501db0db2$94d505d0$be7f1170$@nexbridge.com>

Hi Randall

On 23/09/2024 13:17, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On September 22, 2024 10:26 PM, Sean Allred wrote:
> 
> The GCC dependency, which does not currently exist in git, is independent of
> Rust. > Rust has its own rules and runtime. The issue here is that the Rust team
> gets to
> decide what platforms can participate, NOT the platform maintainers. No
> matter
> what my intent, or resources, I cannot get the Rust team to "Allow" a port.
> In
> many ways, this is egregious and is a policy issue entirely on Rust, not us.
> We
> want to do a Rust port but are simply not allowed/approved. It is their
> policy.

I'm hearing that there is a fundamental incompatibility between some aspect of the NonStop platform and rust's requirements for supported platforms. Does that mean it is likely that rust will never be available on NonStop?

Show 13 quoted lines

> I agree that it is not a good policy to never add new dependencies. However,
> Dependencies must be reasonable and give the platforms a chance, at least,
> to adapt. We cannot in the case of Rust. The problem is not actually that we
> can
> do without new features that are in Rust but not C. The problem is when
> there
> are CVEs. Suppose a severe CVE happens that is fixed in a Rust component but
> referenced by a C component or somehow intertwined. The fix to the CVE
> becomes unavailable and git gets thrown off the platform. That is the
> reality
> of how insidious CVEs are when it meets corporate policy. I am primarily
> trying
> to protect from that.

In that scenario there is nothing preventing a different fix being implemented for an older version of git running on a platform that does not support rust. It's likely that such a fix would need to come from the community using that platform rather than upstream which would represent an additional cost for users that have previously been relying on the upstream to provide security updates.

Show 11 quoted lines

> Telling 10-20000 users that their core bit of infrastructure is insecure and
> not fixable
> is not a tenable position. However, it is hard to defend the community when
> the git
> team is hell-bent on this particular decision. What do you need to
> understand here?
> It is a small community with a large number of users in key financial
> institutions that
> have a very conservative adoption policy and an even more conservative
> hardware
> vendors.

I'm struggling to understand why such a conservative community needs access to the latest version of git. I'd have thought that key financial institutions should be able to fund someone to backport security updates to their critical systems.

Show 7 quoted lines

> Again, it is not the gcc dependency. We have been coping with c99 and will
> have c11
> shortly. It is Rust itself that is exclusionary. It might be easier to write
> new
> functionality in Rust - it is easier in Java, Perl, and Python too. Why
> Rust? Because
> someone wants it, not because you cannot implement the functionality.

It may be true in theory that anything one can write in rust could be written in C instead but in I'm not sure it is true in practice. In previous discussions multi-threading has been mentioned as an example of something that is sufficiently difficult to get right in C that contributors are not willing to implement whereas they would be happy to do so in rust.

I believe that those advocating for using rust are doing so because they believe it will benefit both contributors and users. The problem we have to wrestle with is whether those benefits outweigh the cost to the relatively small proportion of users who do not have access to rust on their platform.

Best Wishes

Phillip