Bug in Rust-Based Uutils Broke Ubuntu 25.10 Automatic Update Checks (omgubuntu.co.uk)
- Reference: 0179944784
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/11/03/0049215/bug-in-rust-based-uutils-broke-ubuntu-2510-automatic-update-checks
- Source link: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/10/ubuntu-25-10-rust-coreutils-date-bug
> [Coreutils] are used by a number of processes, apps and scripts, including Ubuntu's own unattended-upgrades process, which automatically checks for new software updates. Alas, the Rust-based version of date had a bug which meant Ubuntu 25.10 desktops, servers, cloud and container images were [3]not able to automatically check for updates when configured. Unattended-upgrades hooks into the date utility to check the timestamp of a reference file of when an update check was last run and, past a certain date, checks again. But date was incorrectly showing the current date, always.
>
> A fix has been issued so only Ubuntu 25.10 installs withrust-coreutils 0.2.2-0ubuntu2 (or earlier) are affected.
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/11/01/079206/ubuntu-will-use-rust-for-dozens-of-core-linux-utilities
[2] https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/10/ubuntu-25-10-rust-coreutils-date-bug
[3] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-security-announce/2025-October/009890.html
TL;DR (Score:5, Funny)
Rust nerds can't get a date. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, technically speaking - they can only get ONE date.
Re:TL;DR (Score:4, Funny)
> Well, technically speaking - they can only get ONE date.
according to the summary they apparently had a different date every day.
players!
Say it Ain't So! (Score:1)
A bug using the new wonder language! Say it aint't so! Call me an old, unimpressed, code jockey. To say that I could care less about the latest fad would be an understatement. NO language is of any use without a MIND behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except fad languages don't usually have much community support behind it. Lots of things are being reimplemented in rust to eliminate memory safety bugs. Lots of tools are mature, but likely may have hidden bugs that might be exploited for some untowards purpose.
And it's in the kernel, where some developers have found benefits to not having to worry about tricky memory handling issues especially in complex devices like GPUs where the memory buffer can be allocated by a thread long since gone and forgotten a
Rust...so what? (Score:3)
They're making a big deal about it being Rust-based. Why?
Is the bug something that could only happen when using Rust?
Could the same bug be generated no matter what the implementation language is?
Is this just some kind of hit piece on Rust? Oh look, someone used Rust and they made a boo boo! Using Rust is bad! Is that the idea?
because (Score:2, Insightful)
The entire reason this replacement happened was because some jackass wanted to rewrite decades-old code in rust. It wasn't as if he had developed a better version of the utilities and it just happened to be written in rust. No, the replacements were buggy as hell (couldn't even work with the OS's own needed functionality let alone what third party software expected) and many times slower.
The rust fanatics are utterly insufferable -- in the Linux kernel it was said that rust was being allowed so that people
Re: (Score:1)
That's fair. It is definitely the sort of thing you have to think about when you choose to rewrite a mature system, in whatever language.
But yeah, the fact this rewrite happened in rust appears to be irrelevant to this story... just like it was irrelevant to the CloudFlare "rewrite in rust leads to big speed-up" story yesterday.
Re: Rust...so what? (Score:2)
What's relevant is that this would not have ever been attempted in another language. Rust zealots have a special form of brain damage that causes them to try to treat Rust as a computer worm, infecting everything it touches. Without the Rust mental disease, this issue would not have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you could say that. On the other hand you could say the rewrite was an investment in maintainability--sacrificing immediate stability for a future of lack of memory issues and reduced possibility of control flow mistakes or type errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots rewriting a system for no reason, end up adding bugs. Old story.
Rust (Score:2)
is "memory safe" but is not programmer bug free.
specification & testing (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me from reading the article this -should have been caught- by testing against the specification.
"date -r reports current date instead of date specified by reference file." This should have ben tested, it's not a particularly complex test case.