Become a kernel contributor first. I don’t think it’s acceptable to stand outside a community and ask how you can control it by throwing money at it.

Well, here is a very funny one-off commit, but my biggest effort was probably substantial parts of a couple AMD/ATI GPU drivers, well-summarized here. As usual, that was a team effort, with particular credit to Deucher (AMD), Glisse (radeon maintainer), and Airlie (DRM/DRI maintainer). So, put up or shut up. Or, to paraphrase the sentiment that you seem to not grok: talk is cheap; show us your code.

Let me make it clear. I call out brigading because it is useless noise that distorts and obfuscates the kernel development process. I don’t care that you’re salty that I’m pointing out that your “absolute crickets” comment is not only incorrect, but empty in the sense that your lack of perception is not a substitute for the actual process of kernel development. Additionally, in this case, it seems like you’re still focused on personalities rather than the underlying computer science; I expect “absolute crickets” when asking you about the topic of memory safety.

I expect you to have zero kernel commits to your name.

Why does your opinion matter? You’re a chicken, not a pig.

It’s also relevant to note that, most likely, nobody here has the “kwalifikashuns” to discuss this topic. Not even programmers - because odds are that nobody here is in a position to change anything about it.

Literally any kernel hacker can change the kernel. This is the root of why you shouldn’t be in the conversation; you aren’t such a hacker, and you therefore imagine that none of us are, either. You’re not skilled as a sealion either, for what it’s worth.

I am not a programmer. … I’m a random with a chimp avatar. … It’s just that [Hellwig] prioritises consistency (for the sake of maintainability)…

Pick a side and stick to it. You seem very keen to endorse Hellwig’s arguments despite not understanding them, and also to emit words on the topic despite not having a qualified opinion. It sounds like you want me to not take you seriously (so that I won’t reply to you) and also take you seriously (so that you are counted as part of the programming public.)

I’m docking you again, this time for listening comprehension. Quoting Gaynor:

The common thread here is that for each of [six listed vulnerabilities exploited by nation-states against vulnerable minorities], the vulnerability that was executed … was only possible because of the victim’s software being written in a memory-unsafe language. Put another way, if the relevant portions of these projects were written in a safe language, these vulnerabilities wouldn’t have been possible.

That was early in the talk, around 6:30. Later, around 19:40, he says:

The Rust-for-Linux project is working to make it possible for people to write Linux kernel modules in Rust.

So, if you had watched Gaynor’s presentation, you would understand that Rust-for-Linux is a significant and prominent part of a wider push by security professionals to improve the overall safety of common devices, like Android phones, that are in the pockets of millions of people already. And then you wouldn’t be talking about respectability politics while apologizing for reactionaries who oppose that safety.

Your position is entirely reasonable and an excellent example of how ignoring technical details leads to failures of technical leadership. C is one of several languages notable for extreme lack of memory safety. Its lack of safety has been repeatedly quantified; I like to recommend Gaynor 2021 for a high-level introduction. Rust was introduced primarily to replace C (and a relative, C++) and improve the overall security of computing systems.

The “merits of the project Rust4Linux” are simple and obvious: as code is translated from C to Rust, its overall characteristics (readability, performance, low-level modeling of machine behavior) will remain, but overall memory safety will increase. Opposition to it is reactionary, not well-grounded in technical merits; most of Linux is not well-proven to be correct, only believed to be correct under typical operating conditions as estimated by several dozen experienced programmers, and any technical options for improving our confidence in its correctness should be considered.

Also, finally, I have to dock you for reading comprehension. Martin was quite clear: calling Rust a “cancer” – a cute pun given Rust’s crab mascot, or a dehumanizing slur, who knows – was, to them, a violation of the Code. It is not difficult to read the Code and notice that, were it a slur, it would violate the prohibition on “insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks.”

Yeah, writing your own squeeblerizer sucks, but there’s no better option. GNU Scrimble can be used off-the-shelf as a passthrough, so the only real tasks are implementing Squeeb’s algorithm and a sprongler; then, your entire pipeline is merely something like:

$ gscrimble --passthrough --args -- ./your_squeeb | ./your_sprongler

Edit: Whoops! Forgot to mention, GNU Scrimble also has Snorble support out-of-the-box, and Scrimble clients have content auto-negotiation, so your_squeeb can just take JSON on stdin. GNU Scrimble is really nice for this sort of thing, just…big.

And if you want to sprongle directly into a database or etc. then you can write your_sprongler to taste. Full disclosure: I have a fairly fast implementation of Squeeb’s algorithm in rpypkgs. However, I’d really recommend writing your own; it’s like twenty lines of code you can copy from Wikipedia and it’ll give you a good basis for extending it with your own desired changes later.

You can read snorblite’s code if you need to figure out a specific sprongling technique, but it’s way easier to just go look up the original SprongCode from SprongReg. Use a search engine to get around the university’s paywall. This gets you the SprongCode UUID and you don’t have to read code written by a batshit fascist.