3 ms·

Thanks for the background. However, I believe your question > Jason Donenfeld has, to this day, never answered direct and simple questions about WHY he felt so

Thanks for the background. However, I believe your question > Jason Donenfeld has, to this day, never answered direct and simple questions about WHY he felt so strongly that NetBSD's wg implementation should be removed from NetBSD. gets answered by Jason: > In its current form, there are implementation flaws and violations that I do not consider acceptable, and deploying this kind of thing is highly irresponsible and harmful to your users. Rather than playing never ending whack-a-mole misery with this -- which is not a path I'm willing to go down here -- I'd like to re-examine how this is built from the ground-up and do some serious code study. (This response of his is corroborated by the article https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-license-violations-and-bad-code-freebsd-13s-close-call/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-lice... which someone else posted further down.) He also mentions that he's not against having a WireGuard implementation included in NetBSD in general.

Eisenstein 4y ago
What about that describes why it should not be implemented? All he says is "I don't like it and it is not acceptable". If you write a paper and have it proof-read by many competent people, then hand that paper in to a teacher and get back an F with "This is no good, it has flaws I do not consider acceptable", would you think that was reasonable explanation for failing your paper?
- codethief 4y ago
  1) That's not at all what he said. 2) In his message he also mentions that he is short on time and would be willing to elaborate on why the code is flawed as well as collaborate on getting a polished implementation of WG into the kernel a week later. 3) As mentioned by the article I linked, he did follow up on his promises: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2021-March/006494.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2021-March/00649...
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    1) What isn't what he said? I paraphrased you and you quoted him 2) Short on time doesn't correlate with writing up three long replies all refusing to mention even one specific technical problem 3) Your link is in regards to FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and does not mention NetBSD, which is what we are talking about specifically.
  - tssva 4y ago
    The message you link to is in regard to the FreeBSD implementation and not NetBSD.
    - joveian 4y ago
      If anyone wants to review the NetBSD implementation, see: https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/sys/net/if_wg.c https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/sys/net/if_wg.c
1letterunixname 4y ago
NetBSD just needs Rust support for kernel dev. ;) I appreciate when folks take a reasonable stand against craptastic software engineering practices (cough OpenSSL cough) and insist on quality code.
- 0dayz 4y ago
  I may be wrong but openssl was never deemed poor quality primarily due to the devs not giving a damn but because of legacy code and lack of funds.
johnklos 4y ago
He never stated any technical reasons at all - neither then, nor a week later, nor since. He was asked very specifically, by people who are extremely competent, on a technical list: "Can you be specific about what is wrong?" "I don't like it" isn't good technical reasoning.
- nix23 4y ago
  I kind of understand him, WireGuard is connected to his Name, if a implementation is not matching his taste of quality (i especially used taste here) and something happens it backfires. It's a bit the same as with pulse-audio in the beginning, where it backfired to poettering even if the code was not finished and the distributions, especially ubuntu integrated it pretty bad, told no one that it was alpha...and everyone was like: What bad thing my sound worked with alsa before...i hate pulse-audio, poettering destroyed the "year of linux-desktop", now i hate him too ;)

Eisenstein 4y ago

What about that describes why it should not be implemented? All he says is "I don't like it and it is not acceptable". If you write a paper and have it proof-read by many competent people, then hand that paper in to a teacher and get back an F with "This is no good, it has flaws I do not consider acceptable", would you think that was reasonable explanation for failing your paper?

codethief 4y ago
1) That's not at all what he said. 2) In his message he also mentions that he is short on time and would be willing to elaborate on why the code is flawed as well as collaborate on getting a polished implementation of WG into the kernel a week later. 3) As mentioned by the article I linked, he did follow up on his promises: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2021-March/006494.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2021-March/00649...
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  1) What isn't what he said? I paraphrased you and you quoted him 2) Short on time doesn't correlate with writing up three long replies all refusing to mention even one specific technical problem 3) Your link is in regards to FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and does not mention NetBSD, which is what we are talking about specifically.
- tssva 4y ago
  The message you link to is in regard to the FreeBSD implementation and not NetBSD.
  - joveian 4y ago
    If anyone wants to review the NetBSD implementation, see: https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/sys/net/if_wg.c https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/sys/net/if_wg.c

1letterunixname 4y ago

NetBSD just needs Rust support for kernel dev. ;) I appreciate when folks take a reasonable stand against craptastic software engineering practices (cough OpenSSL cough) and insist on quality code.

0dayz 4y ago
I may be wrong but openssl was never deemed poor quality primarily due to the devs not giving a damn but because of legacy code and lack of funds.

johnklos 4y ago

He never stated any technical reasons at all - neither then, nor a week later, nor since. He was asked very specifically, by people who are extremely competent, on a technical list: "Can you be specific about what is wrong?" "I don't like it" isn't good technical reasoning.

nix23 4y ago
I kind of understand him, WireGuard is connected to his Name, if a implementation is not matching his taste of quality (i especially used taste here) and something happens it backfires. It's a bit the same as with pulse-audio in the beginning, where it backfired to poettering even if the code was not finished and the distributions, especially ubuntu integrated it pretty bad, told no one that it was alpha...and everyone was like: What bad thing my sound worked with alsa before...i hate pulse-audio, poettering destroyed the "year of linux-desktop", now i hate him too ;)