[smittywerben]

I don't believe in the "never roll your own encryption" it's literally giving up. Does it make economic sense, or is it just for a hobby? That's more debatable. It's also like a foil of 'don't use regex to parse html' or whatever, where the thread gets closed for comments.

The filesystem is so deeply connected to the OS I bet there's a lot of horror around swapping those interfaces. On the contrary, I've never heard anything bad about DragonflyBSD's HAMMER. But it's basically assumed you're using DragonFlyBSD.

Would I keep a company's database on a new filesystem? No, nobody would know how to recover it from failed disk hardware.

This isn't really my area but a Rust OS using a ZFS-like filesystem seems like a lot of classic Linux maintainer triggers. What a funny little project this is. It's the first I've heard of Redox.

Edit: reminds me of The Tarpit chapter from the Mythical Man Month

> The fiercer the struggle, the more entangling the tar, and no beast is so strong or so skillful but that he ultimately sinks.

[rmunn]

The "never create your own encryption" advice is specifically because crypto is full of subtle ways to get it wrong, which you will NOT catch on your own. It's a special case of "never use encryption that hasn't been poked at for years by hundreds of crypto specialists" — because any encryption you create yourself would fail that test.

Filesystems, as complex as they are, aren't full of traps like encryption is. Still plenty of subtle traps, don't get me wrong: you have to be prepared for all kinds of edge cases like the power failing at exactly the wrong moment, hardware going flaky and yet you have to somehow retrieve the data since it's probably the only copy of someone's TPS report, that sort of thing. But at least you don't have millions of highly-motivated people deliberately trying to break your filesystem, the way you would if you rolled your own encryption.

[smittywerben]

That matches what I've heard, so I think you stated the trope perfectly. Your response is a good point about the actual difficulty. Perhaps I'm confused about what 'rolling your own encryption' means at an abstraction level. I just think it's weird that it comes up in an OS thread. Anyone who is serious about encryption is serious about the encryption hardware. At a higher level, WolfSSL limits the ciphers to a small, modern suite, which reduces the attack surface. Replacing OpenSSL is a fool's errand, I think; it's clearly the perfect implementation of OpenSSL, and it's a perfect security scapegoat. However, this is still about the x86 OS topic. Perhaps it's some TPM politics, similar to the decade-old stigma surrounding ZFS. Maybe I'm just questioning the limits of the x86 platform on any new operating system. Anyway, thanks for the response.