6 ms·

Why does Broadcom insist on proprietary drivers? How could it possibly be detrimental for Broadcom to have free software drivers? This article is a poignant e

Why does Broadcom insist on proprietary drivers? How could it possibly be detrimental for Broadcom to have free software drivers? This article is a poignant example that it is detrimental for them to continue to keep their drivers proprietary.

whowouldathunk 9y ago
The drivers are probably pretty complicated and thus valuable IP.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  I don't buy that. Every wifi chipset has working drivers; therefore there is little to no value in Broadcom's driver as "IP". Contrast that to the value of having a free driver that can receive security patches from anyone at any time.
  - johncolanduoni 9y ago
    Every GPU has working drivers, but optimizations within them can make huge differences in performance on the same hardware.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Comparing a Wifi chipset to a video card is like comparing a bicycle to a sports car.
    - monocasa 9y ago
      The driver 'optimizations' in GPUs tend to boil down to hand written replacements for unoptimal/broken shaders and API call sequences on a per application basis. I expect a network card to not 'interpret' my traffic in a similar way.
      - vvanders 9y ago
        As someone who spent a ton of time in this space(working with most mobile GPU vendors from Android E to L) you're talking about things just at the surface. The way the drivers + backing architecture are built contains tons of IP and things that they would very much not want their competitors seeing. Our team built our reputation and relationship on keeping that data separate and confidential despite working with just about every vendor out there.
      - agumonkey 9y ago
        Adding the double blind optimizations leading to absurdly complex drivers that tries to guess how user code tries to guess driver logic... maybe vulkan will help open source GPU drivers in the end.
    - fulafel 9y ago
      GPU drivers are very bug ridden and 3D apps can easily cause OS crashes. Apps are tested so they don't trigger those bugs. Witness all the complaint comments on webgl posts about machine crashes - and that's with a thick driver bug workaround layer in browsers.
  - gleenn 9y ago
    Tell that to the Open and guys who have been dying for wifi drivers for years. They are definitely not all open. Furthermore, not nearly as many people are running alternative OSes on their phones as they are on other types of computers.
  - freyir 9y ago
    Every wifi chipset has working drivers Every existing Wi-Fi chipset has working drivers. A startup begins from scratch, which is one more barrier to entry.
    - justbuchanan 9y ago
      True, but there are many open-source wi-fi drivers out there already. Unless broadcom's implementation is something out of the ordinary, releasing their driver doesn't really change the game.
      - cyphar 9y ago
        And experience with Broadcom's wireless drivers (and NFC chips) tells me that the only thing extraordinary about them is how awful and limited they are.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    It's not that other chipsets have working drivers, but that am open driver would reveal technical secrets of both their software and hardware design. Not saying I agree with proprietary drivers though.
  - hedora 9y ago
    I'd argue most wifi chipsets do not have working drivers, but I have an apparently high bar for "working": It has to stay authenticated to a given access point indefinitely, can't kernel panic or require reboots to switch to a new network, and needs to have competitive throughout and tail latencies under load. Most wifi adapters fail at least one of these requirements under windows or linux.
  - londons_explore 9y ago
    Many of the "features" of a wifi chipset are implemented in drivers or firmware. QoS? Smarter packet scheduling? Better interference protection? All of those are likley in the drivers. Competitors could review the code and "copy" how great features work without actually copying the code.
- azernik 9y ago
  Having worked on enterprise APs using BCM and Atheros chipsets: The driver is not deeply protected IP. They will hand out full copies to any device manufacturer that uses they're chipset, so that they can integrate it with their systems. The secret sauce, the bit that they won't share with anyone even if it's necessary for debugging, is the on-chip firmware. That's the stuff they take seriously. The driver itself is just a lawyer thing.
Scramblejams 9y ago
One theory I've seen bandied about related to GPU drivers is that it's harder for your competitors to notice you're infringing on their patents if you don't ship your source code.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  This seems unlikely. (Or maybe that's the reason given, but it seems implausible to be true.) Competitors have more than enough know how to determine if you're infringing a patent, source or no source.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    The US legal system has discovery for patent cases. You can sue and then subpoena their code base to confirm whether they are in violation before going to court (and really racking up the fees). Since these are US companies I think that it's more likely fear that others would see the horrible hacks or clever trade secrets. In other countries (most of Asia), where there is no discivery, it's almost impossible to prove hardware or software patent violations so your case is kicked out of court immediately, even if your patent claims are valid and their product reads into your claims. That's why most patent suits end up in the US or Europe (or in the even faster ITC import injunction).
  - freyir 9y ago
    > Competitors have more than enough know how to determine if you're infringing a patent How do you figure? The detectability of infringement is a key factor in deciding whether to file a patent. Regardless, copyright infringement might also be an issue.
    - tedunangst 9y ago
      Well, it's hard to be specific since nobody ever mentions which patents they're talking about. But I would assume that somebody at AMD has the skills to determine whether Nvidia uses the "good matrix" technique, or whatever it is people are assuming AMD patented that Nvidia is trying to hide.
paulie_a 9y ago
There is no benefit. They probably have an embarrassing code base that is full of garbage and a bunch of lawyers paranoid about IP. Why would any manager suggest to take that risk that has very little potential upside. It isn't that it would be realistically detrimental, it just has no value to the individual attempting to change the established course of the ship
- wtallis 9y ago
  There are tons of benefits, to the end users. But most of them result in the user having less reason to buy a new device in the hopes of faster or more reliable WiFi.
  - Canada 9y ago
    End users don't really matter to Broadcom. Chip makers don't sell product to end users, they sell to device manufacturers.
    - axaxs 9y ago
      absolutely true. But manufacturers are not going to use a wifi chip maker known to be repeatedly exploited, because of end user perception.
      - Canada 9y ago
        I hope that becomes true one day, but it's certainly not the case now. Manufacturers currently have no choice but to ship devices running vulnerable application software that communicates with remote devices using vulnerable protocols. This is facilitated by vulnerable operating systems running many vulnerable device drivers communicate with devices that themselves have embedded processors running yet more vulnerable software. All manufacturers can do is keep patching the morass of code that their offering depends on, but most device manufactures can't even manage that, or if they can they are unable do it fast enough and unwilling to do it for long enough.
      - ethbro 9y ago
mmjaa 9y ago
>How could it possibly be detrimental for Broadcom to have free software drivers? Because they are used as a front/vector for US intelligence agencies. Opening this firmware would not allow for the distribution of these implants.
- nl 9y ago
  Well based on the number of NSA and CIA "implants" in Linux and other open source software it isn't clear that makes a lot of difference.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    It is indeed a battle.
- FungalRaincloud 9y ago
  While I acknowledge that this is a very real possibility, I don't think it has anything to do with the motivation to keep the source closed. I think more to do with an old world mentality that all intellectual property is a trade secret. Why share, when there's no real penalty to not sharing?
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    The question is, what value is secrecy, and alas the answer is that for those who want to exploit their technology prowess over others, secrets are a dire necessity. An open ideology is one where everyone wins, even those who aren't on your team. The closed one is mostly to protect ones own team. I don't consider any of the reasons to be good reasons, personally. Commercially necessary, perhaps, as a conforming act as part of the "super-state", also perhaps.. but nevertheless, the best conclusion is that this situation is rotten enough to motivate someone to fix it. Me personally .. I'd love to have the sources for every sub-processor/component in my system. It would be of immense value - commercially and otherwise - to me as an end-user. I hope I don't sit alone in this market...
azernik 9y ago
The bugs in question here are not in the drivers (the bits that run in the OS kernel on the CPU). They are in the firmware (code that runs on a little ARM core on the WiFi chip itself - also called the microcode in the biz). The driver is indeed "protected" for IP-lawyer reasons; they'll have it out under license to every Tom, Dick, and Jane looking to build a device with their chipset. The firmware, on the other hand, is very closely held, because that's where the chip's functionality lives. A WiFi chipset implements a fantastically complicated protocol, and no one wants to bake that into hardware that can't be updated as bugs are found; so they build relatively simple hardware, and slap a microcontroller right on the die that runs all the complicated logic. This means that the microcode is as sensitive as The hardware specs on earlier generations of hardware; a competitor with a copy of that source can make a (perhaps better and improved) knockoff if they're not too worried about legal implications like, say, several dozen Chinese knockoff shops.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  echo $original_comment | sed 's/driver/firmware/g'
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - azernik 9y ago
    In which case this is your answer; they're worried about knockoffs, because without the firmware logic their devices are simple commodities, ie don't really have strong differentiators from the competition.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Is their firmware really noticeably better or have more features than competing chipsets?
      - azernik 9y ago
80211 9y ago
1. Why doesn't Apple open source iOS? 2. These weren't drivers. Did you read the article? 3. The larger share of the blame belongs to Apple. Why does Apple trust devices like this that are essentially independent computers? Why should anything this chip does be able to take over the phone and install software on it, in privileged mode, that replicates itself? 4. Why can't you see things rationally?

whowouldathunk 9y ago

The drivers are probably pretty complicated and thus valuable IP.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
I don't buy that. Every wifi chipset has working drivers; therefore there is little to no value in Broadcom's driver as "IP". Contrast that to the value of having a free driver that can receive security patches from anyone at any time.
- johncolanduoni 9y ago
  Every GPU has working drivers, but optimizations within them can make huge differences in performance on the same hardware.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Comparing a Wifi chipset to a video card is like comparing a bicycle to a sports car.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    The driver 'optimizations' in GPUs tend to boil down to hand written replacements for unoptimal/broken shaders and API call sequences on a per application basis. I expect a network card to not 'interpret' my traffic in a similar way.
    - vvanders 9y ago
      As someone who spent a ton of time in this space(working with most mobile GPU vendors from Android E to L) you're talking about things just at the surface. The way the drivers + backing architecture are built contains tons of IP and things that they would very much not want their competitors seeing. Our team built our reputation and relationship on keeping that data separate and confidential despite working with just about every vendor out there.
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      Adding the double blind optimizations leading to absurdly complex drivers that tries to guess how user code tries to guess driver logic... maybe vulkan will help open source GPU drivers in the end.
  - fulafel 9y ago
    GPU drivers are very bug ridden and 3D apps can easily cause OS crashes. Apps are tested so they don't trigger those bugs. Witness all the complaint comments on webgl posts about machine crashes - and that's with a thick driver bug workaround layer in browsers.
- gleenn 9y ago
  Tell that to the Open and guys who have been dying for wifi drivers for years. They are definitely not all open. Furthermore, not nearly as many people are running alternative OSes on their phones as they are on other types of computers.
- freyir 9y ago
  Every wifi chipset has working drivers Every existing Wi-Fi chipset has working drivers. A startup begins from scratch, which is one more barrier to entry.
  - justbuchanan 9y ago
    True, but there are many open-source wi-fi drivers out there already. Unless broadcom's implementation is something out of the ordinary, releasing their driver doesn't really change the game.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      And experience with Broadcom's wireless drivers (and NFC chips) tells me that the only thing extraordinary about them is how awful and limited they are.
- colordrops 9y ago
  It's not that other chipsets have working drivers, but that am open driver would reveal technical secrets of both their software and hardware design. Not saying I agree with proprietary drivers though.
- hedora 9y ago
  I'd argue most wifi chipsets do not have working drivers, but I have an apparently high bar for "working": It has to stay authenticated to a given access point indefinitely, can't kernel panic or require reboots to switch to a new network, and needs to have competitive throughout and tail latencies under load. Most wifi adapters fail at least one of these requirements under windows or linux.
- londons_explore 9y ago
  Many of the "features" of a wifi chipset are implemented in drivers or firmware. QoS? Smarter packet scheduling? Better interference protection? All of those are likley in the drivers. Competitors could review the code and "copy" how great features work without actually copying the code.
azernik 9y ago
Having worked on enterprise APs using BCM and Atheros chipsets: The driver is not deeply protected IP. They will hand out full copies to any device manufacturer that uses they're chipset, so that they can integrate it with their systems. The secret sauce, the bit that they won't share with anyone even if it's necessary for debugging, is the on-chip firmware. That's the stuff they take seriously. The driver itself is just a lawyer thing.

Scramblejams 9y ago

One theory I've seen bandied about related to GPU drivers is that it's harder for your competitors to notice you're infringing on their patents if you don't ship your source code.

tedunangst 9y ago
This seems unlikely. (Or maybe that's the reason given, but it seems implausible to be true.) Competitors have more than enough know how to determine if you're infringing a patent, source or no source.
- kurthr 9y ago
  The US legal system has discovery for patent cases. You can sue and then subpoena their code base to confirm whether they are in violation before going to court (and really racking up the fees). Since these are US companies I think that it's more likely fear that others would see the horrible hacks or clever trade secrets. In other countries (most of Asia), where there is no discivery, it's almost impossible to prove hardware or software patent violations so your case is kicked out of court immediately, even if your patent claims are valid and their product reads into your claims. That's why most patent suits end up in the US or Europe (or in the even faster ITC import injunction).
- freyir 9y ago
  > Competitors have more than enough know how to determine if you're infringing a patent How do you figure? The detectability of infringement is a key factor in deciding whether to file a patent. Regardless, copyright infringement might also be an issue.
  - tedunangst 9y ago
    Well, it's hard to be specific since nobody ever mentions which patents they're talking about. But I would assume that somebody at AMD has the skills to determine whether Nvidia uses the "good matrix" technique, or whatever it is people are assuming AMD patented that Nvidia is trying to hide.

paulie_a 9y ago

There is no benefit. They probably have an embarrassing code base that is full of garbage and a bunch of lawyers paranoid about IP. Why would any manager suggest to take that risk that has very little potential upside. It isn't that it would be realistically detrimental, it just has no value to the individual attempting to change the established course of the ship

wtallis 9y ago
There are tons of benefits, to the end users. But most of them result in the user having less reason to buy a new device in the hopes of faster or more reliable WiFi.
- Canada 9y ago
  End users don't really matter to Broadcom. Chip makers don't sell product to end users, they sell to device manufacturers.
  - axaxs 9y ago
    absolutely true. But manufacturers are not going to use a wifi chip maker known to be repeatedly exploited, because of end user perception.
    - Canada 9y ago
      I hope that becomes true one day, but it's certainly not the case now. Manufacturers currently have no choice but to ship devices running vulnerable application software that communicates with remote devices using vulnerable protocols. This is facilitated by vulnerable operating systems running many vulnerable device drivers communicate with devices that themselves have embedded processors running yet more vulnerable software. All manufacturers can do is keep patching the morass of code that their offering depends on, but most device manufactures can't even manage that, or if they can they are unable do it fast enough and unwilling to do it for long enough.
    - ethbro 9y ago

mmjaa 9y ago

>How could it possibly be detrimental for Broadcom to have free software drivers? Because they are used as a front/vector for US intelligence agencies. Opening this firmware would not allow for the distribution of these implants.

nl 9y ago
Well based on the number of NSA and CIA "implants" in Linux and other open source software it isn't clear that makes a lot of difference.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  It is indeed a battle.
FungalRaincloud 9y ago
While I acknowledge that this is a very real possibility, I don't think it has anything to do with the motivation to keep the source closed. I think more to do with an old world mentality that all intellectual property is a trade secret. Why share, when there's no real penalty to not sharing?
- mmjaa 9y ago
  The question is, what value is secrecy, and alas the answer is that for those who want to exploit their technology prowess over others, secrets are a dire necessity. An open ideology is one where everyone wins, even those who aren't on your team. The closed one is mostly to protect ones own team. I don't consider any of the reasons to be good reasons, personally. Commercially necessary, perhaps, as a conforming act as part of the "super-state", also perhaps.. but nevertheless, the best conclusion is that this situation is rotten enough to motivate someone to fix it. Me personally .. I'd love to have the sources for every sub-processor/component in my system. It would be of immense value - commercially and otherwise - to me as an end-user. I hope I don't sit alone in this market...

azernik 9y ago

The bugs in question here are not in the drivers (the bits that run in the OS kernel on the CPU). They are in the firmware (code that runs on a little ARM core on the WiFi chip itself - also called the microcode in the biz). The driver is indeed "protected" for IP-lawyer reasons; they'll have it out under license to every Tom, Dick, and Jane looking to build a device with their chipset. The firmware, on the other hand, is very closely held, because that's where the chip's functionality lives. A WiFi chipset implements a fantastically complicated protocol, and no one wants to bake that into hardware that can't be updated as bugs are found; so they build relatively simple hardware, and slap a microcontroller right on the die that runs all the complicated logic. This means that the microcode is as sensitive as The hardware specs on earlier generations of hardware; a competitor with a copy of that source can make a (perhaps better and improved) knockoff if they're not too worried about legal implications like, say, several dozen Chinese knockoff shops.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
echo $original_comment | sed 's/driver/firmware/g'
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- azernik 9y ago
  In which case this is your answer; they're worried about knockoffs, because without the firmware logic their devices are simple commodities, ie don't really have strong differentiators from the competition.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Is their firmware really noticeably better or have more features than competing chipsets?
    - azernik 9y ago

80211 9y ago

1. Why doesn't Apple open source iOS? 2. These weren't drivers. Did you read the article? 3. The larger share of the blame belongs to Apple. Why does Apple trust devices like this that are essentially independent computers? Why should anything this chip does be able to take over the phone and install software on it, in privileged mode, that replicates itself? 4. Why can't you see things rationally?