Linux kernel: multiple vulnerabilities in the USB subsystem

Re:Linux kernel: multiple vulnerabilities in the USB subsystem by kogepathic on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @04:35PM (#15647880)

> Is it technically possible to write a driver in Rust and add it to the kernel in a reasonable way? That is, without gobs of fragile shims, etc.

I think this is highly unlikely. The Linux kernel lacks an internal ABI [0] which would make writing drivers in a different language and targeting them at multiple kernel releases essentially impossible.

Many, many people and organizations writing drivers have complained over the years about the lack of an internal ABI. [1] [2] I would go so far as to say it's why Linux on ARM is such a dumpster fire. SoC vendors provide an SDK based on a certain kernel, and OEMs forever ship this kernel (with occasional backports for really severe bugs) because porting the device-specific changes to a newer kernel is just too much effort.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_interfaces

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/827862/why-i-need-to-re-...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9220973

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux kernel: multiple vulnerabilities in the USB subsystem by pjmlp on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @05:14PM (#15648176)

Google created their own Linux driver ABI with Project Treble.

Basically, it transforms Linux into a kind of microkernel, with drivers being implemented on their own processes, using shared memory APIs to talk with the kernel, based on an IDL (Interface Description Language).

https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hidl/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux kernel: multiple vulnerabilities in the USB subsystem by kasabali on Thursday November 09, 2017 @05:10AM (#15661223)

Why do you think ABI compatibility is needed for wiring drivers in Rust? ABI compatibility is only needed for binary modules. Source compatibility should be enough for source code form.

[ Parent | on HN ]