Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
198 Indlæg 103 Posters 150 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

    The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

    Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

    But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

    https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

    PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

    migratory@jorts.horseM This user is from outside of this forum
    migratory@jorts.horseM This user is from outside of this forum
    migratory@jorts.horse
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #10

    @lcamtuf this is so funny and predictable because it's applying Rust in precisely the domain where it doesn't help: opaque, imperative side-effects in the global mutable state of the UNIX world of the filesystem and process tree

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD darkuncle@infosec.exchange

      @ChuckMcManis @lcamtuf came to say this, you beat me to it, well done

      chuckmcmanis@chaos.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
      chuckmcmanis@chaos.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
      chuckmcmanis@chaos.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #11

      @darkuncle @lcamtuf
      During my tenure at Google I was astonished at how many engineers would clearly admit they didn't understand why something was the way it was, so they rewrote it. This *repeatedly* bit them in the ass.

      darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD josh@hactivedirectory.comJ 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • chuckmcmanis@chaos.socialC chuckmcmanis@chaos.social

        @darkuncle @lcamtuf
        During my tenure at Google I was astonished at how many engineers would clearly admit they didn't understand why something was the way it was, so they rewrote it. This *repeatedly* bit them in the ass.

        darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
        darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
        darkuncle@infosec.exchange
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #12

        @ChuckMcManis @lcamtuf sometimes that's the only way to learn, but it's also often the most effective way to learn

        sten@chaos.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

          The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

          Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

          But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

          https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

          PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

          benh@mastodon.scotB This user is from outside of this forum
          benh@mastodon.scotB This user is from outside of this forum
          benh@mastodon.scot
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #13

          @lcamtuf

          Joel spolsky had a great blogpost about exactly this didn't he

          benh@mastodon.scotB 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • benh@mastodon.scotB benh@mastodon.scot

            @lcamtuf

            Joel spolsky had a great blogpost about exactly this didn't he

            benh@mastodon.scotB This user is from outside of this forum
            benh@mastodon.scotB This user is from outside of this forum
            benh@mastodon.scot
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #14

            @lcamtuf

            https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

            cmdrmoto@hachyderm.ioC 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

              The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

              Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

              But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

              https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

              PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

              hyc@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
              hyc@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
              hyc@mastodon.social
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #15

              @lcamtuf See this all the time - people storm in trying to change things before trying to understand how the current things work. People who don't learn from what's been done before. Society doesn't progress from efforts like theirs. You only make progress by learning from and building on top of what came before.

              synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.netS kajord@hachyderm.ioK argv_minus_one@mastodon.sdf.orgA w8emv@a2mi.socialW 4 Replies Last reply
              0
              • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

                Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

                But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

                https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

                PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

                raymaccarthy@mastodon.ieR This user is from outside of this forum
                raymaccarthy@mastodon.ieR This user is from outside of this forum
                raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #16

                @lcamtuf
                I learned C++ after Modula-2 and before C.
                I learned programming earlier.

                Learning a programming language isn't learning programming (extracting requirements, specification, design, coding, test etc).
                I looked at Rust. C++ certainly has got too complicated since 1987, but I wonder does Rust *only* help with memory safety?
                Main memory safety in general relates to using pointers that are invalid, accessing arrays out of bounds and past the end of strings.
                Partly bad libraries & design.

                zardoz03@mastodon.onlineZ lispi314@udongein.xyzL beandev@social.tchncs.deB 3 Replies Last reply
                0
                • hyc@mastodon.socialH hyc@mastodon.social

                  @lcamtuf See this all the time - people storm in trying to change things before trying to understand how the current things work. People who don't learn from what's been done before. Society doesn't progress from efforts like theirs. You only make progress by learning from and building on top of what came before.

                  synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.netS This user is from outside of this forum
                  synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.netS This user is from outside of this forum
                  synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.net
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #17

                  @hyc @lcamtuf ie. be like LEGO not Death Stars

                  wonka@chaos.socialW 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS simonzerafa@infosec.exchange

                    @lcamtuf

                    Deus forbid if they create a functional specification of how the existing utilities work, before converting / rewriting them in a new language 😟🤦‍♂️

                    drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
                    drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
                    drwho@masto.hackers.town
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #18

                    @simonzerafa @lcamtuf Hahahahahah...

                    Madness.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                      The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

                      Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

                      But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

                      https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

                      PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

                      lee_holmes@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                      lee_holmes@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                      lee_holmes@infosec.exchange
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #19

                      @lcamtuf Yeah, not a good situation - even doing it in "safe C++" or somesuch would have had the same result. Decades of hard-learned lessons should be encoded in decades of well-written unit tests.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                        The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

                        Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

                        But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

                        https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

                        PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

                        drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
                        drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
                        drwho@masto.hackers.town
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #20

                        @lcamtuf Welp. Got rent for next month covered.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • pikhq@social.treehouse.systemsP pikhq@social.treehouse.systems

                          @lcamtuf and it's very worth remembering that while the design of rust _does_ prevent many bugs, it's not a get-out-of-bugs-free card. there are many ways to write code wrong, not just memory safety issues!

                          petrillic@hachyderm.ioP This user is from outside of this forum
                          petrillic@hachyderm.ioP This user is from outside of this forum
                          petrillic@hachyderm.io
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #21

                          @pikhq @lcamtuf @drwho we are, as a species, especially creative at finding new ways to write code wrong.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          1
                          0
                          • raymaccarthy@mastodon.ieR raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie

                            @lcamtuf
                            I learned C++ after Modula-2 and before C.
                            I learned programming earlier.

                            Learning a programming language isn't learning programming (extracting requirements, specification, design, coding, test etc).
                            I looked at Rust. C++ certainly has got too complicated since 1987, but I wonder does Rust *only* help with memory safety?
                            Main memory safety in general relates to using pointers that are invalid, accessing arrays out of bounds and past the end of strings.
                            Partly bad libraries & design.

                            zardoz03@mastodon.onlineZ This user is from outside of this forum
                            zardoz03@mastodon.onlineZ This user is from outside of this forum
                            zardoz03@mastodon.online
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #22

                            @raymaccarthy
                            well allegedly its types are meant to aid in type driven design and better domain modelling; but i dont know if this is actually seen in practice in better code structure. same could be said of cxx + its classes
                            @lcamtuf

                            raymaccarthy@mastodon.ieR 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                              The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

                              Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

                              But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

                              https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

                              PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

                              m@martinh.netM This user is from outside of this forum
                              m@martinh.netM This user is from outside of this forum
                              m@martinh.net
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #23

                              @lcamtuf Et tu, TOCTOU

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • xerz@soc.masfloss.netX xerz@soc.masfloss.net

                                @lcamtuf ........ouch

                                I'm shocked they didn't account for any of that

                                hypha@cafe.mycelium.locahlo.stH This user is from outside of this forum
                                hypha@cafe.mycelium.locahlo.stH This user is from outside of this forum
                                hypha@cafe.mycelium.locahlo.st
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #24

                                @xerz @lcamtuf it’s easy to fall for domain specific knowledge traps when you’re learning
                                which is why it’s often advised against rewriting software from scratch, especially if you were not in the first team of developers

                                star@fed.amazonawaws.comS 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • zardoz03@mastodon.onlineZ zardoz03@mastodon.online

                                  @raymaccarthy
                                  well allegedly its types are meant to aid in type driven design and better domain modelling; but i dont know if this is actually seen in practice in better code structure. same could be said of cxx + its classes
                                  @lcamtuf

                                  raymaccarthy@mastodon.ieR This user is from outside of this forum
                                  raymaccarthy@mastodon.ieR This user is from outside of this forum
                                  raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #25

                                  @zardoz03 @lcamtuf
                                  Strong types help, but loads of languages had that 40 years ago.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.netS synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.net

                                    @lcamtuf Rustaceans are the problem, not Rust itself. theyre like a lobbing group trying explicitly to boost their future employment demand much more than prioritized on doing the right thing as engineers or for the community. much like the AI VC are "talking up their book" even if its poison for the rest of us

                                    rmq@toot.ioR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rmq@toot.ioR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rmq@toot.io
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #26

                                    @synlogic4242 Uutils started as someone’s personal project to learn rust, and “write a system utility” is frequently used as a basic exercise for learning. Uutils is doing exactly what it set out to do.

                                    It’s not the fault of uutils that Canonical is dumb.

                                    @lcamtuf

                                    synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.netS 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                                      The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

                                      Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

                                      But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

                                      https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

                                      PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

                                      klausman@mas.toK This user is from outside of this forum
                                      klausman@mas.toK This user is from outside of this forum
                                      klausman@mas.to
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #27

                                      @lcamtuf There's also that human habit of getting complacent about all bugs when _some_ types of bugs are either impossible or very very hard to make because of language structure and tooling.

                                      orb2069@mastodon.onlineO 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                                        The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

                                        Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

                                        But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

                                        https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

                                        PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

                                        groxx@hachyderm.ioG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        groxx@hachyderm.ioG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        groxx@hachyderm.io
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #28

                                        @lcamtuf a related observation would probably be: why did important, security-critical edge cases get handled without enough documentation to prevent them from reoccurring?

                                        orb2069@mastodon.onlineO fivetonsflax@tilde.zoneF 2 Replies Last reply
                                        0
                                        • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                                          The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

                                          Coreutils are tools like rm, mv, mkdir, etc. Unlike binutils, this isn't a fertile ground for memory safety bugs. But, the rewrite was completed, and in the spirit of progress, Canonical decided to switch.

                                          But do you know what coreutils are a fertile ground for? Race conditions around file creation, deletion, permission setting, and so on. The original code accounted for decades of hard-learned lessons in that space. The Rust rewrite did not:

                                          https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2026/q2/332

                                          PS. I'm not dunking on Rust. It's just that... starting over from scratch has its hidden costs.

                                          arcaik@hachyderm.ioA This user is from outside of this forum
                                          arcaik@hachyderm.ioA This user is from outside of this forum
                                          arcaik@hachyderm.io
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #29

                                          @lcamtuf Why do we keep calling uutils coreutils a rewrite?

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper