Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[artium]

I am experimenting with writing Linux kernel modules in Ada and document my attempts.

Thought some here would be interested to read about this: 

http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/11/23/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-1/

https://github.com/alkhimey/Ada_Kernel_Module_Toolkit


Any kind of criticism is welcomed.

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Brian Drummond]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:49:14 -0700, artium wrote:

> I am experimenting with writing Linux kernel modules in Ada and document
> my attempts.
> 
> Thought some here would be interested to read about this:
> 
> http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/11/23/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-1/
> 
> https://github.com/alkhimey/Ada_Kernel_Module_Toolkit
> 
> 
> Any kind of criticism is welcomed.

Interesting work, I've thought about trying it in the past.

One small nitpick : It's not November yet...
Try
http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/10/23/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-1/

-- Brian

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Coyo T Stormcaller]

artium@nihamkin.com wrote:

> I am experimenting with writing Linux kernel modules in Ada and document
> my attempts.
> 
> Thought some here would be interested to read about this:
> 
> http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/11/23/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-1/
> 
> https://github.com/alkhimey/Ada_Kernel_Module_Toolkit
> 
> 
> Any kind of criticism is welcomed.

This is a fascinating concept. It would make sense, given how security and 
stability focused Ada is. I wonder how Ada and Rust would compare on various 
aspects.

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Hadrien G.]

Le 29/10/2016 à 04:19, Coyo T Stormcaller a écrit :
> artium@nihamkin.com wrote:
>
>> I am experimenting with writing Linux kernel modules in Ada and document
>> my attempts.
>>
>> Thought some here would be interested to read about this:
>>
>> http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/11/23/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-1/
>>
>> https://github.com/alkhimey/Ada_Kernel_Module_Toolkit
>>
>>
>> Any kind of criticism is welcomed.
>
> This is a fascinating concept. It would make sense, given how security and
> stability focused Ada is. I wonder how Ada and Rust would compare on various
> aspects.
>

I would say that Rust is a relatively recent newcomer in the large 
family of languages that try to remain C-like while addressing the main 
flaws of C and C++, and bringing a couple of nice functional features 
from ML along the way, whereas Ada has a more original take on language 
design.

For an example, consider integer types. In Rust, you are expected to use 
signed or unsigned integer types with power-of-2 sizes ranging from 8 
bits to 64 bits. To a C99/C++11 developer, that's nothing new: they 
essentially took the sized int types from stdint.h and made them the 
default because they are much more portable than the legacy 
short/int/long trio.

In contrast, Ada tried to go further by decoupling the interface of 
integers from their implementation. When you define an integer type in 
Ada, you specify its range and leave it up to the implementation to 
decide which machine type will be used. This design leaves more room for 
hardware-specific compiler optimizations, like C's legacy short/int/long 
types, while still remaining perfectly portable.

Cheers,
Hadrien

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Simon Clubley]

On 2016-10-29, Hadrien G. <knights_of_ni@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> I would say that Rust is a relatively recent newcomer in the large 
> family of languages that try to remain C-like while addressing the main 
> flaws of C and C++, and bringing a couple of nice functional features 
> from ML along the way, whereas Ada has a more original take on language 
> design.
>

In addition, Ada has the advantage of actually being readable.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Coyo T Stormcaller]

Simon Clubley wrote:

> On 2016-10-29, Hadrien G. <knights_of_ni@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would say that Rust is a relatively recent newcomer in the large
>> family of languages that try to remain C-like while addressing the main
>> flaws of C and C++, and bringing a couple of nice functional features
>> from ML along the way, whereas Ada has a more original take on language
>> design.
>>
> 
> In addition, Ada has the advantage of actually being readable.
> 
> Simon.
> 

Looking over code examples, I do notice that I can immediately understand 
what's going on in Ada, even if I have to guess at some of the conventions. 
I want to say Python is very slightly more readable, but I'm not sure if 
that's simply because I'm actually decent at Python, or if I was always able 
to read Python before learning how to program in it.

Both Python and Ada seem infinitely more readable than C, which is often 
only readable with heavy commenting. I've gotten better at 
reading/programming in C, but not all programs have lots of helpful comments 
in the source code.

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Simon Clubley]

On 2016-10-29, Coyo T Stormcaller <coyo@darkdna.net> wrote:
> Simon Clubley wrote:
>> 
>> In addition, Ada has the advantage of actually being readable.
>> 
>
> Looking over code examples, I do notice that I can immediately understand 
> what's going on in Ada, even if I have to guess at some of the conventions. 
> I want to say Python is very slightly more readable, but I'm not sure if 
> that's simply because I'm actually decent at Python, or if I was always able 
> to read Python before learning how to program in it.
>
> Both Python and Ada seem infinitely more readable than C, which is often 
> only readable with heavy commenting. I've gotten better at 
> reading/programming in C, but not all programs have lots of helpful comments 
> in the source code.

Actually, I was thinking about Rust when I said that which I find
to be more unreadable than C (and even C++).

On the plus side, at least Rust is more readable than TECO. :-)

My readable scale (left to right for readable to less readable):

Ada > C > C++ > Rust > TECO

(Knowledge of the last one is as the result of a certain career
development path and I don't expect you to know the language. :-))

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 21:25:27 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> declaimed the following:

>
>(Knowledge of the last one is as the result of a certain career
>development path and I don't expect you to know the language. :-))
>
	I think I spent a trimester with TECO during my operating systems class
in the late 70s.

	I think I'd rather program the basic ED editor on the Amiga via
AREXX...
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Simon Clubley]

On 2016-10-29, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 	I think I spent a trimester with TECO during my operating systems class
> in the late 70s.
>
> 	I think I'd rather program the basic ED editor on the Amiga via
> AREXX...

:-)

I used TECO in my youth for a few years because I started on PDP-11s
but thankfully I have not had to use it for over a couple of decades...

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. :-)

It would be nice to see more examples about using Ada within Linux
(and maybe even *BSD) kernel modules and if the OP wishes to continue
with his research, I encourage him to continue to update us on
the results of that research.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[artium]

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 1:49:04 AM UTC+3, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2016-10-29, Dennis Lee Bieber <*> wrote:
> > 	I think I spent a trimester with TECO during my operating systems class
> > in the late 70s.
> >
> > 	I think I'd rather program the basic ED editor on the Amiga via
> > AREXX...
> 
> :-)
> 
> I used TECO in my youth for a few years because I started on PDP-11s
> but thankfully I have not had to use it for over a couple of decades...
> 
> Anyway, back to the subject at hand. :-)
> 
> It would be nice to see more examples about using Ada within Linux
> (and maybe even *BSD) kernel modules and if the OP wishes to continue
> with his research, I encourage him to continue to update us on
> the results of that research.
> 
> Simon.
> 
> -- 
> Simon Clubley, *
> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Part 2, incorporating the secondary stack into the run time.

http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/11/05/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-2/

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Simon Wright]

artium@nihamkin.com writes:

> Part 2, incorporating the secondary stack into the run time.
>
> http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/11/05/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-2/

Interesting!

What about elaboration? Have you considered the restriction
No_Elaboration_Code? (would it help?)

(On a purely personal note, I find heavy grey (and black) backgrounds
painful to read.)

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Dirk Heinrichs]

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> I think I'd rather program the basic ED editor on the Amiga via
> AREXX...

Yeah, AREXX was fun. Speaking of Amiga: Anybody remember the Cluster 
language?

Bye...

	Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de>
GPG Public Key CB614542 | Jabber: dirk.heinrichs@altum.de
Tox: heini@toxme.se
Sichere Internetkommunikation: http://www.retroshare.org
Privacy Handbuch: https://www.privacy-handbuch.de

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Lucretia]

On Saturday, 19 November 2016 18:15:05 UTC, Dirk Heinrichs  wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> 
> > I think I'd rather program the basic ED editor on the Amiga via
> > AREXX...
> 
> Yeah, AREXX was fun. Speaking of Amiga: Anybody remember the Cluster 
> language?

Nope, but I did do a lot of AmigaE.

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

On 10/29/2016 02:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>
> My readable scale (left to right for readable to less readable):
>
> Ada > C > C++ > Rust > TECO

There's no way C should be that close to Ada. More like

Ada > Pascal > Erlang > Python > FORTRAN 66 > BASIC > languages that will 
compile/execute line noise

> (Knowledge of the last one is as the result of a certain career
> development path and I don't expect you to know the language. :-))

You're talking about the macro language of the TECO text editor? Certainly way 
up there on the write-only scale.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely
turned his tail and fled."
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
60

Re: Writing Linux Kernel Modules in Ada

[Coyo T Stormcaller]

Hadrien G. wrote:

> Le 29/10/2016 à 04:19, Coyo T Stormcaller a écrit :
>> artium@nihamkin.com wrote:
>>
>>> I am experimenting with writing Linux kernel modules in Ada and document
>>> my attempts.
>>>
>>> Thought some here would be interested to read about this:
>>>
>>> http://www.nihamkin.com/2016/11/23/writing-linux-modules-in-ada-part-1/
>>>
>>> https://github.com/alkhimey/Ada_Kernel_Module_Toolkit
>>>
>>>
>>> Any kind of criticism is welcomed.
>>
>> This is a fascinating concept. It would make sense, given how security
>> and stability focused Ada is. I wonder how Ada and Rust would compare on
>> various aspects.
>>
> 
> I would say that Rust is a relatively recent newcomer in the large
> family of languages that try to remain C-like while addressing the main
> flaws of C and C++, and bringing a couple of nice functional features
> from ML along the way, whereas Ada has a more original take on language
> design.
> 
> For an example, consider integer types. In Rust, you are expected to use
> signed or unsigned integer types with power-of-2 sizes ranging from 8
> bits to 64 bits. To a C99/C++11 developer, that's nothing new: they
> essentially took the sized int types from stdint.h and made them the
> default because they are much more portable than the legacy
> short/int/long trio.
> 
> In contrast, Ada tried to go further by decoupling the interface of
> integers from their implementation. When you define an integer type in
> Ada, you specify its range and leave it up to the implementation to
> decide which machine type will be used. This design leaves more room for
> hardware-specific compiler optimizations, like C's legacy short/int/long
> types, while still remaining perfectly portable.
> 
> Cheers,
> Hadrien

Fascinating!

I didn't know that about Rust.