From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Skip Tavakkolian Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 19:03:51 -0700 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa4d6c0574edf414" Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?" Topicbox-Message-UUID: e09bb488-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000000000000aa4d6c0574edf414 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" To me, one of the big advantages for Plan 9 is structural, not necessarily related to C. There's no need to put everything in the kernel and one can have different specialized kernels (e.g. kenfs), so long as the basic protocols are followed. On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 9:32 AM Chris McGee wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm reading this article about how they are going through the giant > heaping pile of Linux kernel code and trying to come up with safer > practices to avoid the "dangers" of C. The prevailing wisdom appears to be > that things should eventually be rewritten in Rust some day. > > https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/763641/c9a04da2a33af0a3/ > > I'm curious how the Plan 9 C compiler fits into this story. I know that it > was designed to avoid many of the pitfalls of standard C. Does it try to > address some of these dangers or is it focused on making code more readable > so that problems are more apparent? > > How does everyone feel about the Plan 9/9front kernel? Have they gone > through hardening/testing exercises over the years? I'm curious what tools > are available to help discover bugs. > > Cheers, > Chris > --000000000000aa4d6c0574edf414 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To me, one of the big advantages for Plan 9 is structural,= not necessarily related to C. There's no need to put everything in the= kernel and one can have different specialized kernels (e.g. kenfs), so lon= g as the basic protocols are followed.

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 9:32 AM Chris McGee <newton688@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I'm reading this article about how they are going through t= he giant heaping pile of Linux kernel code and trying to come up with safer= practices to avoid the "dangers" of C. The prevailing wisdom app= ears to be that things should eventually be rewritten in Rust some day.


I'm curious how the Plan 9 C= compiler fits into this story. I know that it was designed to avoid many o= f the pitfalls of standard C. Does it try to address some of these dangers = or is it focused on making code more readable so that problems are more app= arent?

How does everyone feel about the Plan 9/9fr= ont kernel? Have they gone through hardening/testing exercises over the yea= rs? I'm curious what tools are available to help discover bugs.

Cheers,
Chris
--000000000000aa4d6c0574edf414--