Also there’s reasons why eBPF programs aren’t allowed to run arbitrarily long and this just ignores that problem too.

rust type system is not a security mechanism

it's a mechanism to avoid bugs which can become security issues not a way to enforce well behavior on a kernel boundary

as an example the current rust compiler has some bugs where it accepts unsound programs which are not seen as supper high priority as you most most likely won't run into them by accident. If rust where a verification system enforcing security at a kernel boundary this would be sever CVEs...

also eBPF verification checks more properties, e.g. that a program will deterministically terminate and can't take too long to do so, which is very important for the kind of thing eBPF is(1).

and eBPF programs are also not supposed to do anything overly complex or difficult to compute but instead should only do "simple" checks and accounting and potentially delegate some parts to user space helper program. So all the nice benefits rust has aren't really that useful.

In the end there is a huge gap between the kind of "perfect verification" you need for something like eBPF and "type checking to avoid nasty bugs". One defends against mistakes the other against malicious code.

To be fair if your use case doesn't fit into eBPF at all and you choice is rex-rs or a full kernel driver rex-rs is seems a far better choice then a full custom rust driver in a lot of way.

IMHO it would be grate if rust verification could become at some point so good that it can protect reliably against malicious code and have extensions for enforcing code with guaranteed termination/max execution budged. But rust isn't anywhere close to it, and it's also not a core goal rust development focused on.

(1): In case anyone is wondering how that works given that the halting problem is undecidable: The halting problem applies to any arbitrary program. But there are subsets of programs which can be proven to halt (or not halt). E.g. `return 0` is trivially proven to halt and `while True: pass` trivially to not halt (but `while(1){}` is UB in C++ and henceforth might be compiled to a program which halts, it's still an endless loop in C)

Maybe i'm missing something, but isn't that a bad thing?