3 ms·

What I find funny though is that every implementation not involving Donenfeld has "drama" (Free- and NetBSD). The small code still leave a lot of room for failu

• yakubin 4y ago
  That’s why I mentioned reviewed code. The original FreeBSD code which sparked the drama wasn’t reviewed. And honestly some of the issues that were there are not something preventable by limiting oneself to even 50 LOC. I don’t want to speculate how they came to be though. It’s really baffling.
  • fmajid 4y ago
    It was reviewed, with prejudice. Netgate (company behind pfSense) asked Donenfeld "by the way, we are merging this into FreeBSD next week, would you mind having a look?". Donenfeld dropped whatever he was doing (the short notice period: not cool at all), looked at the code, was horrified by what he saw, and blew the whistle. Instead of being grateful, the team at Netgate/pfSense started being snitty. Colin Perceval (Chief Security Officer for FreeBSD) decided to just yank it, but the clear influence Netgate has over the FreeBSD project is not a good look. Here's a good summary: 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... Contrast this with how easily and well Wireguard was integrated into OpenBSD.