Hector Martin (@marcan@treehouse.systems)
social.treehouse.systems
Behold, a Linux maintainer openly admitting to attempting to sabotage the entire Rust for Linux project: https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250131075751.GA16720@lst.de/ The good news is this doesn't affect drm/asahi, our GPU driver. The bad news is it does affect all the *other* drivers we're (re)writing in Rust, two so far with a third one coming. Another choice quote, calling R4L "cancer": https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/ Personally, I would consider this grounds for removal of Christoph from the Linux project on Code of Conduct violation grounds, but sadly I doubt much will happen other than draining a lot of people's energy and will to continue the project until Linus says "fuck you" or something. As for how to move forward, if I were one of the Rust maintainers, I would just merge the patch (which does *not* touch code formally maintained by the dissenter). Either Linus takes the pull, and whatever Christoph says is irrelevant, or he doesn't, and R4L dies. Everything else is a waste of everyone's time and energy. Edit: Sent in my 2 cents: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2b9b75d1-eb8e-494a-b05f-59f75c92e6ae@marcan.st/T/#m1944b6d485070970e359bbc7baa71b04c86a30af

Behold, a Linux maintainer openly admitting to attempting to sabotage the entire Rust for Linux project:

https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250131075751.GA16720@lst.de/

The good news is this doesn’t affect drm/asahi, our GPU driver. The bad news is it does affect all the other drivers we’re (re)writing in Rust, two so far with a third one coming.

Another choice quote, calling R4L “cancer”: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/

Personally, I would consider this grounds for removal of Christoph from the Linux project on Code of Conduct violation grounds, but sadly I doubt much will happen other than draining a lot of people’s energy and will to continue the project until Linus says “fuck you” or something.

As for how to move forward, if I were one of the Rust maintainers, I would just merge the patch (which does not touch code formally maintained by the dissenter). Either Linus takes the pull, and whatever Christoph says is irrelevant, or he doesn’t, and R4L dies. Everything else is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.

Edit: Sent in my 2 cents: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2b9b75d1-eb8e-494a-b05f-59f75c92e6ae@marcan.st/T/#m1944b6d485070970e359bbc7baa71b04c86a30af

  • Corbin@programming.devEnglish
    23·
    7 hours ago

    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.”

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
      21·
      5 hours ago

      Your position is entirely reasonable and an excellent example of how ignoring technical details leads to failures of technical leadership.

      That’s why I didn’t address the technical merits, like a leader should. (Nor I am a leader; I’m a random with a chimp avatar.) I focused on the “popcorn” / drama.

      [ Rust info dump ]

      Cool beans.

      What I’m saying is that Martin should be sharing this info, instead of creating drama.

      Because ultimately the goal of both sides is the same, a better kernel. It’s just that one prioritises consistency (for the sake of maintainability) and another the advantages of Rust over C, and those priorities are in conflict.

      And if Hellwig cannot be convinced, the leadership can, and should.

      Also, finally, I have to dock [to reduce wage from; to deduct points from] you for reading comprehension. Martin was quite clear: calling Rust a “cancer” […] was, to them, a violation of the Code.

      I’m saying that Martin has the moral obligation to make his complain as precise as possible: “The CoC says [insert excerpt] and Hellwig is going against that”. Telling people to RTFCoC is the opposite of that. Is this clear now?

      Also, this either is or isn’t a violation of the CoC. There’s no space for “to them”, rule violations should be handled as objectively as reasonably possible. (From a quick check, it doesn’t seem to be one. I might be wrong however.)

      a cute pun given Rust’s crab mascot, or a dehumanizing slur, who knows

      There’s no room for either reading, given that

      • Hellwig shows no interest on Rust, so references to the mascot are out-of-place
      • A project is not a human being.

      The immediate reading is as an analogy; cancer is known for spreading itself through tendrils, taking huge amounts of resources. If that reading is correct, Hellwig is criticising the project for not being well contained, and invading spaces that Hellwig believes that it shouldn’t.

      Another possible reading is “cancer” as “shit”, “crap”, or “rubbish”; a simple negative word.

      were it a slur, it would violate the prohibition on “insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks.”

      And were my cat a chicken, she would lay eggs. However my cat is not a chicken and “cancer” is not a slur.