3 ms·
The number of regular OpenBSD users that are not programmers is probably vanishingly thin. If my memory serves me correctly, there are features of modern x86 pr
by seabird 6y ago
The number of regular OpenBSD users that are not programmers is probably vanishingly thin. If my memory serves me correctly, there are features of modern x86 processors that it straight up doesn't implement on a don't-care basis, so it's pretty safe to say that nobody that has made peace with that is looking to deal with technology as maligned as Bluetooth when they're likely already buying hardware specifically to run OpenBSD.
- ThinkBeat 6y agoDo you have any links to that? I am curious what they are?
- seabird 6y agohttps://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152600018515730&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152600018515730&w=2 This is what I had in mind. This obviously impacts some useful gdb features, but such is the nature of OpenBSD.
- RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y agoI'm a fan of OpenBSD's more conservative and structured approach to software development, but in this case I must beg to differ. In the linked CVE, OpenBSD was unaffected because "[it] didn't chase the fad of using every Intel cpu feature." The feature in question was user-space hardware debug register access. Without such access, watch-points are borderline unusable[0]. Perhaps prohibiting access to user-space except GDB would be a reasonable compromise. Also, debug registers are not unique to x86: most (all?) CPU architectures have them. So calling it a "fad [...] Intel cpu feature" is a bit unfair. [0] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152609160230624&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152609160230624&w=2