而就在不久前，这场拉锯终于迎来了一个明确的节点。 在 2025 年 Linux Kernel Maintainers Summit（Linux 内核维护者峰会） 上，内核维护者们达成共识：Rust 在 Linux 内核中的"实验阶段"正式结束——这意 味着，Rust 不再只是一个被谨慎试用的新语言，而是被明确认可为 Linux 主线内核的长期组成部分。 在 Linux 内核世界，很少有技术路线能像 Rust 一样，引发如此长期、激烈且公开的争论。 有人视它为内核安全的"破局钥匙"，有人则认为这是对既有工程秩序的冒险挑战。围绕是否该把 Rust 引入内核，过去几年里，邮件列表上的争吵、核心 开发者的分歧乃至项目成员的退出，几乎成了一部持续上演的"内核连续剧"。 五年"实验"，一条并不平坦的路 Rust for Linux 项目最早可以追溯到 2020 年。彼时，该项目的定位非常克制：不是取代 C，也不是大规模重写内核，而是尝试回答一个问题——Rust 是否 值得 Linux内核为其付出额外的复杂度成本？ 正因如此，在很长一段时间里，Rust 代码只能在严格受限的范围内存在，被明确标注为 "experimenta ...

Core Insights - Linus Torvalds expresses a generally positive attitude towards vibe coding as a way to introduce newcomers to programming, but emphasizes it is not suitable for production-level code due to maintenance concerns [2][5][31] - The introduction of Rust into the Linux kernel is seen as a significant change, with Torvalds noting that it is becoming a real part of the kernel rather than just an experimental feature, although the process is slower than expected [3][15][21] - AI's impact on the software development landscape is complex, with Torvalds suggesting that while AI tools can enhance productivity, they will not replace the need for skilled programmers [34][36] Group 1: AI and Software Development - Torvalds acknowledges the disruptive influence of AI, particularly the influx of AI-generated bug reports that complicate kernel maintenance, although the impact is less severe compared to other projects [4][23][26] - He has not personally used AI coding tools but recognizes their potential for improving productivity in certain contexts, while cautioning against over-reliance on them for serious projects [5][27][34] - The expectation is that AI will eventually become a standard tool in software development, similar to compilers, enhancing efficiency without eliminating the need for human programmers [34][36] Group 2: Linux Kernel Development - Torvalds has shifted from primarily rejecting new ideas to occasionally endorsing them, indicating a change in his role as a maintainer to encourage innovation within the kernel community [10][13][15] - The Linux kernel development process has remained stable, but recent years have seen significant debates and changes, including the removal of certain components to reduce friction within the community [15][17][21] - The relationship between Nvidia and the Linux community has improved, with Nvidia becoming a more cooperative player in the Linux kernel space due to the importance of Linux in AI cloud applications [4][21][22]

Core Insights - The Intel 80386 processor, launched in October 1985, marked a significant turning point in personal computing as the first 32-bit chip in the Intel PC product line and the origin of the IA-32 instruction set [1][5][14] - The 80386 featured 275,000 transistors and operated at a frequency of up to 16 MHz, supporting a maximum address space of 4GB, which laid the foundation for true multitasking and virtual memory [1][4] - The introduction of the 80386 led to the development of various operating systems, including early versions of Windows and Linux, which utilized its advanced features [4][12] Group 1: Historical Context - The 80386 was developed as a response to the competitive landscape, particularly after IBM rejected Intel's earlier designs, leading Compaq to be the first company to launch a computer with the new CPU [2][11] - The Deskpro i386, released by Compaq in September 1986, was priced at $6,499 and became a pivotal product in the PC industry [2][10] - The architecture of the 80386 was influenced by the need for backward compatibility and the desire to create a more powerful and efficient processing unit compared to its predecessors [6][8] Group 2: Technical Advancements - The 80386 introduced a protected mode and paging capabilities, which allowed for better memory management and the ability to run multiple DOS sessions simultaneously [1][4][8] - It expanded the instruction set significantly, adding 54 new instructions and various addressing modes to effectively utilize the 4GB address space [8][10] - The architecture's design enabled the development of a robust ecosystem around the 80386, leading to its widespread adoption in servers and mobile computers [14] Group 3: Market Impact - The 80386's success was crucial for Intel, as it faced significant competition from other manufacturers who were also producing x86-compatible processors [5][12] - By the late 1980s, the 80386 had established itself as a standard in the PC market, leading to the creation of a diverse range of applications and operating systems that leveraged its capabilities [12][14] - The processor's legacy continues today, as modern x86 processors still retain the core architecture established by the 80386, highlighting its lasting influence on computing [14][15]

Core Viewpoint - The article narrates the journey of a programmer who developed the Linux operating system, highlighting the challenges faced and the eventual success achieved through perseverance and innovation [21][39]. Group 1: Early Influences and Learning - The protagonist had a strong affinity for mathematics, physics, and computer science from a young age, which shaped their future career [7][10]. - A significant book, "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation," profoundly impacted the protagonist, providing deep insights into machines and programming [18][21]. Group 2: Development of Linux - In the early 1990s, the protagonist assembled a computer for $3,500, which became a crucial tool for programming [22]. - The initial version of the Linux kernel (0.01) was released and made open-source, leading to contributions from developers worldwide [31][32]. Group 3: Financial Success and Contributions - The protagonist received stock options from Red Hat as a token of appreciation for contributions to Linux, which later resulted in a net worth of $5 million [38][39]. - The development of Git, a code management tool, was another significant achievement that emerged from the protagonist's efforts [41]. Group 4: Philosophical Insights - The article concludes with a philosophical perspective on life, emphasizing survival, social order, and entertainment as the three essential steps in life, with coding being a source of joy for programmers [42].

Core Viewpoint - Linus Torvalds publicly criticized a Google engineer's RISC-V code submission for Linux 6.17, labeling it as "garbage" due to its poor quality and late submission [2][3][5]. Group 1: Criticism of Code Quality - Torvalds emphasized that the newly submitted RISC-V code contained unnecessary and poor-quality additions that do not pertain specifically to RISC-V [6][9]. - He provided examples of problematic code, such as the "make_u32_from_two_u16()" helper function, which he argued complicates understanding and makes the code worse [7][9]. - Torvalds insisted that such low-quality submissions should not be sent, especially late in the merge window, and warned developers against future late submissions [10][9]. Group 2: Developer Communication - Torvalds's comments were not merely harsh; he aimed to provide constructive feedback to improve code quality and adherence to submission timelines [3][4]. - He advised developers to submit their pull requests early in the merge window and to ensure that the code is of high quality, stating that "no more garbage" should be submitted [10][9]. - The response from social media regarding Torvalds's outburst was mixed, with some appreciating his directness and others questioning his approach [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a significant gathering of four influential figures in the tech industry: Mark Russinovich, Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, and David Cutler, emphasizing the potential impact of their collaboration on future technological advancements [1][2][4]. Group 1: Individual Contributions - **Bill Gates**: Co-founder of Microsoft, instrumental in developing the Windows operating system, and a key figure in the personal computer revolution [5]. - **Linus Torvalds**: Creator of the Linux operating system and Git, pivotal in the open-source movement, with Linux being a core system for servers and supercomputers [6][7]. - **Mark Russinovich**: Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft Azure, known for his expertise in Windows internals and contributions to cloud computing and system architecture [8][10][12]. - **David Cutler**: Renowned for developing major operating systems including VAX/VMS, Windows NT, and Azure, recognized as a leading figure in modern operating systems [13][14][15]. Group 2: Industry Impact - The meeting of these four leaders represents a convergence of ideas that could lead to significant innovations in technology, particularly in operating systems and cloud computing [4][16]. - The article suggests that future collaborations among these figures could yield groundbreaking advancements in the tech industry, potentially influencing the direction of software development and cloud services [4][16].

Core Points - The Linux kernel development process is complex and involves collaboration among thousands of developers, which can lead to tense situations and conflicts [1] - During the Linux 6.16 merge window, Linus Torvalds expressed anger over suspicious submissions from Kees Cook, which included 330 pull requests that appeared to alter author information and forge merge history [2][3] - Linus accused Kees of malicious behavior, stating that the submissions were not simple errors but deliberate falsifications, and demanded an explanation and the removal of the affected code tree [4][6] Incident Details - The controversy arose when Linus noticed unusual Git operations in Kees's code tree, leading to accusations of malicious submissions [3][4] - Kees Cook responded by suggesting that a malfunctioning SSD might have caused the corrupted code tree and promised to rectify the situation [7] - Linus remained skeptical, emphasizing that the scale of the issue indicated a serious problem with Kees's scripts and operations [8] Resolution - The root cause was identified as an issue with the b4 tool, which Kees used for patch management, leading to unintended alterations in commit metadata [9] - Konstantin Ryabitsev, the Linux infrastructure maintainer, confirmed that Kees did not act with malice and proposed to restore Kees's account after addressing the tool's issues [9] - Linus agreed to the account restoration but insisted on modifications to the b4 tool to prevent future occurrences of similar issues [9] Community Reactions - Some developers criticized Linus for his aggressive response, arguing that it was unnecessary given the accidental nature of the incident [10] - Others defended Linus, highlighting the importance of maintaining strict oversight and accountability in the Linux kernel development process [10]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the successful identification of a Linux kernel zero-day vulnerability using the o3 model, highlighting the potential of large models in security research and vulnerability detection [1][2][5]. Group 1: Vulnerability Discovery - The vulnerability, identified as CVE-2025-37899, is a use-after-free vulnerability in the SMB "logoff" command handler [4]. - This marks the first publicly discussed instance of a vulnerability discovered by a large model [5]. - The discovery process involved minimal tools, relying solely on the o3 API without complex setups [3][6]. Group 2: Research Methodology - Sean Heelan, an independent researcher, initially tested the o3 model on a manually discovered vulnerability (CVE-2025-37778) to evaluate its capabilities [12]. - He provided the model with a session handler's code and specified the search for use-after-free vulnerabilities, running each experiment 100 times to gather success rates [13]. - The o3 model demonstrated a notable performance, identifying vulnerabilities in a complex codebase of approximately 3,300 lines [15]. Group 3: Comparative Analysis - Heelan also tested other models, Claude 3.7 and Claude 3.5, with o3 outperforming them significantly: Claude 3.7 found vulnerabilities 3 times out of 100 runs, while Claude 3.5 found none [18]. - The o3 model's output was structured and clear, resembling human-written vulnerability reports, while Claude's output was more verbose and less organized [17]. Group 4: New Vulnerability Discovery - When testing o3 on a larger codebase of about 12,000 lines, the success rate for the original vulnerability dropped to 1%, but it reported a new vulnerability that Heelan was previously unaware of [21]. - This new vulnerability was also a use-after-free issue, highlighting the model's ability to discover previously unknown vulnerabilities [22]. Group 5: Repair Suggestions - The o3 model provided more comprehensive repair suggestions than Heelan's initial proposals, indicating its potential to enhance vulnerability remediation processes [25]. - Heelan acknowledged that using o3 for vulnerability detection and repair could theoretically yield better results than manual efforts, despite current challenges with false positives [27][28]. Group 6: Future Implications - Heelan concluded that large models are approaching human-like capabilities in program analysis, suggesting a shift in how code auditing may be conducted in the future [30]. - There are concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI capabilities for malicious purposes, emphasizing the need for vigilance in the security landscape [31].