3 ms·
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 we
by 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 ago1) 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 agoThe message you link to is in regard to the FreeBSD implementation and not NetBSD.
- joveian 4y agoIf 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