Safer Linux Kernel Modules Using the D Programming Language

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9987502

47 29 4 years ago

ieeexplore.ieee.org

"In this paper, we show that it is possible to incrementally transition the kernel code from C to a memory safe programming language, D, by porting and integrating a device driver. In addition, we propose a series of code transformations that allow the D compiler to reason about the safety of certain memory operations. Our implementation increases the security guarantees of the kernel without incurring any performance penalties."

emccue• 4 years ago

Our choice of D was based on three criteria: syntax similarity to the C programming language, interoperability with C programs and high performance generated code.

I'm a bit perplexed tying to figure out how any of these criteria is a reason to choose D over rust

estaniloiu• 4 years ago

We believe that the D programming language can be a great candidate for writing kernel device drivers in a safe programming language. D is fully compatible with C and mechanically checks, during compilation, the user code for unsafe behavior. The language also boasts powerful compile-time features that make it possible to write highly specific, high performance code.

It also has a smooth learning curve and does not force language features onto the users, allowing them to gradually improve their code base, as they become more comfortable with the language.

We were able to integrate D in the kernel with minimal effort. It took us (a team of 4) 3 months to port the driver to D. We were able to use the existing kernel build system and weren't required to add extra support in the kernel for D.

Both D and Rust are a great step forward to writing safe software. Imhmo, having multiple options to choose from helps developers.

spease• 4 years ago

Doesn’t D require a GC to achieve the safety guarantees that Rust provides without one, and many third-party libraries require this GC? Just looking over a comparison between them on Reddit.

Shorel• 4 years ago

I'm a bit perplexed the first comment in any D-lang post is always about Rust or about Nim.

klyrs• 4 years ago

Don't forget zig! (which is, coincidentally, the language I'd do this in -- but I see little value to such nitpicking)

ttkciar4• 4 years ago

Rust has a very enthusiastic following, and D is perceived as interloping on "their" territory because it is good at a lot of the same things.

cesarb• 4 years ago

I'm a bit perplexed tying to figure out how any of these criteria is a reason to choose D over rust

The first one (syntax similarity to the C programming language) is obviously a valid reason to prefer D over Rust for Linux kernel programming (which mostly uses a dialect of C). The other two (interoperability with C programs and high performance generated code) are a necessity for a programming language to be considered for Linux kernel programming (and Rust scores highly on both). So the first criteria would favor D, while the other two would be neutral between D and Rust.

(There probably are other criteria, outside these three, which favor Rust over D, given that Rust support has already been tentatively merged into the Linux kernel.)

8jy89hui• 4 years ago

It has taken huge amounts of work to get the Rust ecosystem to where it is. Even still, it has huge regions where it is immature. Is anyone in the D community able to talk about how mature the ecosystem is?

I had always assumed (perhaps naively) that not many people used D and that it was a bit esoteric…? Not to offend anyone. Kind of like F.

Should developers be investing time into learning D?

teleforce• 4 years ago

The codes and the presentation at DConf 2019 related to the paper:

https://github.com/alexandrumc/d-virtio

https://dconf.org/2019/talks/militaru.html

Safer Linux Kernel Modules Using the D Programming Language

Related Stories