As to the utility of hybrid mode, I politely disagree. For example, is it useful for safe Rust code to always pay the size penalty of capabilities when you've proven at compile-time that they can't misuse the underlying pointers? A very different example is that hybrid mode allows you to meaningfully impose sub-process like compartments (in particular with the `DDC` register, which restricts non-capability code to a subset of the virtual address space; see also the `PCC` register and friends). Personally, I think that this latter technique holds a great deal of potential.
This seems like it's impossible though? How can you prove at compile time that all software that your safe Rust calls doesn't corrupt pointers? Don't you need capabilities in the Rust to ensure that if such software does something nefarious, the Rust code catches it before doing something untoward? (Not to mention the risk of compiler bugs causing something.)
Now it's possible that CHERI would make this impossible, but it's definitely an angle worth recognising.
The raw pointer would be synthesised with the capability for only the pointee of the original reference.
One important use of Rust is operating systems, allocators, and JIT compilers where security is important and interacting with capabilities is expected. You’ll really want some way to represent them in the language for these usecases.
You would probably have direct access to the primitives available, but discourage using them, because using them means non portable code.
This paragraph in particular:
> Fortunately, I believe that Aria's proposal can be adapted such that a Rust-for-CHERI can cope with both pure capability and hybrid modes. In essence, one needs explicit, separate, types for both traditional pointers and capabilities. mut () suffices for the former and a wrapper of some sort, e.g. Cap<mut ()> for the latter. Conceptually this means that mut () is no longer the root of the integer/pointer type system, because one cannot convert Cap<mut ()> to mut () without losing information (the capability's extra bits). My gut feeling is that in practice, most code can treat mut () as the root of the integer/pointer type system, and only code which really cares about capabilities need know of Cap's existence. An additional nice property is that one will be able to write Rust code in a way that can be agnostic about pure capability mode (where size_of::<mut ()>() == size_of::<Cap<mut ()>>()) and hybrid mode (where size_of::<mut ()>() < size_of::<Cap<mut ()>>()).
Capabilities should not be visible to users of the Rust language what-so-ever and should only exist in the compiler, and nowhere else.
The more correct solution is to just forbid "hybrid" modes, which seem only useful for C projects where there is a lot of legacy code. Something Rust doesn't have.
The author also admits as such in their footnote on hybrid mode having "many uses":
> In the context of Rust, it's also worth asking whether it's worth making all pointers double width (which, though perhaps small, will undoubtedly have measurable memory and performance costs). After all, most Rust code is safe, and the compiler can guarantee that pointers can't be easily misused for things like buffer overruns. Rather, I see the main utility for a language like Rust being to impose various "sub-process" like compartments, with only relatively small portions of the code needing to use capabilities explicitly.
It is perfectly acceptable to have all Rust-on-CHERI systems to have double width pointers in my opinion. This wouldn't affect software on any existing supported platforms. If you're writing new Rust code, for a CHERI system, but not using capabilities, I would wonder why you're using the platform in the first place.