Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • 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 (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

The coreutils Rust rewrite story is pretty funny.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
47 Posts 27 Posters 173 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • 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:

    Link Preview Image
    oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

    favicon

    (seclists.org)

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

    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 last edited by
    #2

    @lcamtuf mumble, mumble, Chesterson's Fence, mumble, mumble

    darkuncle@infosec.exchangeD 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:

      Link Preview Image
      oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

      favicon

      (seclists.org)

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

      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 last edited by
      #3

      @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 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:

        Link Preview Image
        oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

        favicon

        (seclists.org)

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

        pikhq@social.treehouse.systemsP This user is from outside of this forum
        pikhq@social.treehouse.systemsP This user is from outside of this forum
        pikhq@social.treehouse.systems
        wrote last edited by
        #4

        @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 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:

          Link Preview Image
          oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

          favicon

          (seclists.org)

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

          simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
          simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
          simonzerafa@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #5

          @lcamtuf

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

          drwho@masto.hackers.townD 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:

            Link Preview Image
            oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

            favicon

            (seclists.org)

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

            prozacchiwawa@functional.cafeP This user is from outside of this forum
            prozacchiwawa@functional.cafeP This user is from outside of this forum
            prozacchiwawa@functional.cafe
            wrote last edited by
            #6

            @lcamtuf i do find that the crates dedicated to atomic file handling and temp files, in the interest of providing a uniform platform interface aren't as good as what's reachable in c.

            it's not a fault of the rust language per se, but writing a safe interface at that level isn't easy, so it makes sense (and is in some sense a better default) to have high level, platform neutral access here.

            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:

              Link Preview Image
              oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

              favicon

              (seclists.org)

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

              xerz@soc.masfloss.netX This user is from outside of this forum
              xerz@soc.masfloss.netX This user is from outside of this forum
              xerz@soc.masfloss.net
              wrote last edited by
              #7

              @lcamtuf ........ouch

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

              hypha@cafe.mycelium.locahlo.stH 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:

                Link Preview Image
                oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

                favicon

                (seclists.org)

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

                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 last edited by
                #8

                @lcamtuf very much a Chesterton's Fence kind of situation

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • chuckmcmanis@chaos.socialC chuckmcmanis@chaos.social

                  @lcamtuf mumble, mumble, Chesterson's Fence, mumble, mumble

                  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 last edited by
                  #9

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

                  chuckmcmanis@chaos.socialC 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
                  • 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:

                    Link Preview Image
                    oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

                    favicon

                    (seclists.org)

                    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 last edited by
                    #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 last edited by
                      #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 1 Reply 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 last edited by
                        #12

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

                        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:

                          Link Preview Image
                          oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

                          favicon

                          (seclists.org)

                          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 last edited by
                          #13

                          @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 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:

                            Link Preview Image
                            oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

                            favicon

                            (seclists.org)

                            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 last edited by
                            #14

                            @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 1 Reply 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 last edited by
                              #15

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

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

                                @lcamtuf

                                Deus forbitbthey 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 last edited by
                                #16

                                @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:

                                  Link Preview Image
                                  oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

                                  favicon

                                  (seclists.org)

                                  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 last edited by
                                  #17

                                  @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:

                                    Link Preview Image
                                    oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

                                    favicon

                                    (seclists.org)

                                    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 last edited by
                                    #18

                                    @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 last edited by
                                      #19

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

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      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 last edited by
                                        #20

                                        @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:

                                          Link Preview Image
                                          oss-sec: uutils coreutils CVEs

                                          favicon

                                          (seclists.org)

                                          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 last edited by
                                          #21

                                          @lcamtuf Et tu, TOCTOU

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups