Invented by OpenBSD

http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/invented-by-openbsd

by glass- • 11 years ago

212 89 11 years ago

liveoneggs• 11 years ago

except the 0 behavior has been restored

TodPunk3• 11 years ago

Today. Timestamped almost right with this article. I'm sure it is correlated and not causal, but I'm also pretty sure the root cause for both is the same.

clort3• 11 years ago

I'm not sure what your supposition about the root cause might mean.

NetBSD very recently imported these functions (reallocarray and strtonum) to libc after much objection (over several years actually) to their poor APIs, yet finding that they crop up time and again in code used in base (and then multiple copies exist, in out of the way places). So, as a pragmatic solution they are now available from libc if _OPENBSD_SOURCE is defined. Cleaner API functions were proposed, with wrappers which would provide equivalent functionality for the OpenBSD functions. Some difference was noted, and recently fixed in these wrappers.

The root cause for the NetBSD changes then, seems to be that these functions keep cropping up, and the job of libc is to provide commonly used functions.

I believe the intention is, that the cleaner API is proposed to replace the original OpenBSD ones, which are not properly portable (strtonum for instance, returns hard coded english error strings in ASCII)

The root cause for the blog entry by Ted Unangst is probably that he is an OpenBSD developer and was involved in creating these functions, which are now being criticised.

These root causes don't seem the same to me.

TodPunk3• 11 years ago

I've never understood why anyone wouldn't just use OpenBSD if you're going to use a BSD. I'm sure there are reasons, there must be, but OpenBSD has a long history of having really great source code that's useful just about everywhere (hint: you're using OpenSSH almost assuredly on every linux box ever, and it's fantastic). To me, as a developer I get the whole NIH thing. I really do. I just don't get why you'd choose "here" to be somewhere that doesn't include all the amenities in the first place.

adekok• 11 years ago

OpenBSD focuses on security.

NetBSD focuses on engineering and architecture.

Having used both, I'd say the security focus of OpenBSD means it's often lacking consistency and "polish". NetBSD's focus on engineering means it's consistent, clean, etc.

What other operating system has a build.sh?

https://www.netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/chap-build.html

You can build identical binaries for NetBSD on any *NIX host OS. That's impressive.

adamrt• 11 years ago

Would you mind giving a few examples where OpenBSD is lacking consistency or polish?

I was a huge NetBSD fan for many years, but I moved to OpenBSD about 6-7 years ago because I felt it actually had more consistency and polish. It's been so long now though that I don't remember specifics.

justin66• 11 years ago

Having used both, I'd say the security focus of OpenBSD means it's often lacking consistency and "polish".

I wonder why you think so. I've only ever used OpenBSD and NetBSD on PCs and Unix workstations. I have never, ever, in any domain found NetBSD to have more "polish" than OpenBSD.

From the initial installation where OpenBSD helps you with everything and NetBSD, well, doesn't, to reading and using documentation (OpenBSD's man pages are the best around, with the possible oddball exception of some old Open Group pages which include code examples), OpenBSD seems to be miles ahead.

So I just wonder what you're talking about specifically.

aggieben• 11 years ago

Having once been a close follower of OpenBSD, I eventually just kind of lost interest because Linux (and other BSDs) were just moving so much faster on features that mattered more to me. Multiprocessor support was the big one for me at the time; I have no idea where that currently stands.

My recollection was that OpenBSD code was actually quite polished, and even elegant in lots of places. They also produced what I think were easily the best and most complete manpages out there. It was actually enjoyable to read both the code and manpages, and pretty easy to understand (assuming proficiency in C and basic machine architecture, of course).

What was not enjoyable, for me, was the constant hostility on the mailing list and frequent lashing out at others in various OSS communities (...as demonstrated in the OP). I know there there were others for whom that played no small part in their loss of interest in the project.

angersock• 11 years ago

I'd be interested in some elaboration on that point of security vs. engineering and architecture.

Form what little I've seen of the OpenBSD folks, having sound engineering and architecture is exactly how they attack security.

weland2• 11 years ago

Having used both, I'd say the security focus of OpenBSD means it's often lacking consistency and "polish". NetBSD's focus on engineering means it's consistent, clean, etc.

Having seen NetBSD's source code more than once, "clean" is not exactly the thought that always comes to mind. Au contraire, OpenBSD has a simplicity-driven approach that's one of the cornerstones of most of the awesome stuff that they achieved.

That being said, NetBSD's build system is very good. OpenBSD's doesn't help too much in the portability department.

darklajid4• 11 years ago

Running a FreeBSD machine for various services (otherwise I'm a Windows dev by day, Linux guy during the night). Why?

When I - not quite a year ago - looked into possible setups for this thing I found pkg-ng (and poudriere) both a lot more comfortable and familiar. More powerful. Sold.

swhipple• 11 years ago

If you need the ability to run 32-bit binaries on an amd64 install or have Linux binary compatibility, FreeBSD has options to provide these while OpenBSD does not.

I run OpenBSD on one of my laptops, but if performance or compatibility are important factors, you might look at other tools for the job -- the different BSDs have different strengths.

masklinn• 11 years ago

OpenBSD is the secure one, FreeBSD is the fast/featureful one (outside of security anyway) and NetBSD is the portable/ported one.

aortega4• 11 years ago

Basically FreeBSD and NetBSD are better as long as you don't connect them to Internet.

In particular FreeBSD security is so abysmal, once you plug it to the internet you can't really say is your computer anymore.

Edit: Downvote this: Windows Vista had ASLR and latest FreeBSD 10 does not.

conductor• 11 years ago

You forgot DragonflyBSD with its HAMMER filesystem, virtual kernels, etc.

Touche• 11 years ago

I use FreeBSD for two reasons:

1. The documentation is unmatched.

2. The community is very nice.

I don't know if 1 applies to OpenBSD or not, but 2 doesn't.

weland2• 11 years ago

#1 applies to OpenBSD far, far more than it applies to FreeBSD.

feld4• 11 years ago

You forgot a reason:

5 years of base system support for a release branch with rolling-release ports/packages vs OpenBSD's "1 year and you're unsupported" model.

duaneb• 11 years ago

1) Ports are difficult to come by. Furthermore, installing ports kind of destroys the black security box an openssl install implies. 2) Non-security updates are slow. 3) The mailing list is hostile.

Furthermore, netbsd and freebsd offer substantial improvements: netbsd will run on anything, freebsd will offer you some pretty ridiculous tools and a huge base of ports and support.

protomyth• 11 years ago

I use OpenBSD for most everything, but I do use FreeBSD for our file servers just because of ZFS. I will probably look at DragonFly BSD once HAMMER2 is done. If someone ports HAMMER2 over to OpenBSD (one can dream), then I am probably back to one chosen OS[1].

I have found OpenBSD to be pretty easy to install and I really prefer the hier over FreeBSD's.

1) This does not include the obvious "must run on" for certain software packages. We have Windows Server, OS X, Red Hat, and an AS/400 (iSeries) because of vendor / government requirements.

_wmd2• 11 years ago

Because it's kernel-side SMP support is basically from the 80s

Because getting commercial support for it is hard

Because getting drivers for it is hard

Because ..

Lots of reasons, nothing to do with feel-good or whatever else. OpenBSD's focus on security is commendable, but it's not the only reason you'd pick an operating system.

atmosx2• 11 years ago

Some main differences:

- LLVM/Clang (it's a matter of taste, but it's also the feature :-) )

- FreeBSD Jails and Mac (These are extremely strong security features if implemented correctly. Especially jails are really undervalued/misunderstood IMHO.)

- State-of-art network stack (faster than any other BSD or Linux. Supports technologies like NetMap)

- ZFS support (important for both desktops/servers)

- PF version runs on multiple cpus (OpenBSD's version is more advanced though)

- DTrace (although not mature enough IMHO)

- Better hardware support (e.g. wifi cards)

- BHyve (virtualisation)

- Capsicum (security)

Other little things like:

- Unmapped VMIO buffers - Variable symlinks (used under jails)

Now generally speaking, choosing an operating system due to bigotry and what-not is stupid. Most of the times, engineers go with what they need: If you need a secure bastion, OpenBSD gives you more although FreeBSD can be turned virtually impenetrable as can Linux. OpenBSD comes with more bells and whistles on this particular area though.

So all in all, it boils to what you need. The major reason why people choose FreeBSD over OpenBSD is because the 'security level' of the OS is more than acceptable while retaining a much better hardware support.

pyvpx• 11 years ago

you're right on quite a few things, but bhyve is no where near production quality -- alpha at best. and openbsd has a wider and stronger support of wifi cards.

eeZi• 11 years ago

Does FreeBSD have system-wide ASLR nowadays?

byuu3• 11 years ago

Don't forget that only FreeBSD has the nVidia binary drivers, too. (Neither have nouveau anymore.) So if you have such a card, OpenBSD defaults to the "nv" driver, which somehow manages to be about 20x slower than the VESA driver, before MTRR write-combine tweaking (side tangent: OpenBSD also lacks an MTRR tweaking tool, like memcontrol.) Moving a window literally locks up your desktop for 30-90 seconds as you see it slowly redrawing its way along. How they managed that one I will never know, but they did.

I'm all for open source all the way, especially on a secure system, but OpenBSD+nVidia is basically unusable on the desktop. And that's a huge class of systems. You can't buy Intel PCIe cards; and AMD drivers are always a buggy mess.

PF version runs on multiple cpus (OpenBSD's version is more advanced though)

I really hate the trade-off of FreeBSD SMP support, or OpenBSD queuing support. (yes, you can compile a FreeBSD kernel with ALTQ, but it's said to be buggy with SMP.)

markjdb• 11 years ago

- DTrace (although not mature enough IMHO)

Can you be more specific about that comment?

hiphopyo• 11 years ago

Can't argue with that, although:

- FreeBSD Jails and Mac (These are extremely strong security features if implemented correctly. Especially jails are really undervalued/misunderstood IMHO.)

Aren't these are only necessary if you let people you don't trust into your system?

- PF version runs on multiple cpus (OpenBSD's version is more advanced though)

Personally I dislike running PF on FreeBSD as it requires me to resort to old docs and use old syntaxes.

- Capsicum (security)

Isn't this being ported as we speak?

themartorana• 11 years ago

Also, and this is perhaps weird to non-users, but true, FreeBSD has a well supported base AMI in AWS EC2. It's an edge case, but it's a big reason I rely on FreeBSD over OpenBSD.

regularfry• 11 years ago

- BHyve (virtualisation)

For me, not being able to run a current kernel-accelerated qemu is a real problem. Is there anything preventing this work from being done, or is it just a matter of bhyve having the momentum so nobody's bothering?

cgag• 11 years ago

I'd definitely be using it if there were a modern GHC port. Sticking with linux until I can see if I can get dragonfly working on my laptop. Man I want HAMMER.

elchief• 11 years ago

Why do people use NetBSD over OpenBSD? Serious question.

jaak• 11 years ago

NetBSD supports many more platforms and architectures than OpenBSD (I ran NetBSD on MIPS and 68k years ago).

vezzy-fnord• 11 years ago

Besides portability, NetBSD does have a lot of attractive technical features, including a cross-platform source-based packaging system, the rump kernel concept where drivers can be run in both monolithic and microkernel-esque fashions, an extensive kernel-level authorization system through kauth(9), a very intelligently designed driver framework with lots of low-level components abstracted into machine-independent interfaces (which OpenBSD and FreeBSD later integrated themselves), and so on.

NetBSD has also been the first to introduce new features like reforming the rc boot scripts into the more modern rc.d system.

Lots of people (esp. Linux users) have this impression that all Unix-likes besides Linux are hulking dinosaurs stuck in the old ages, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

ausjke• 11 years ago

NetBSD is normally the first choice for embedded products in the BSD family, I'm aware of some large companies used NetBSD in their routers and printers.

Sanddancer2• 11 years ago

Performance for one. OpenBSD's awesome security features do come at a cost regarding speed. Feature sets is another; NetBSD has some features, like Rump Kernels [1], which OpenBSD doesn't have, and has shown some hostility to in the past. Like any architecture decision, it comes down to researching who has the best solution set for your problem and working from there.

[1] http://rumpkernel.org/

cootysratsemen• 11 years ago

Also worth noting that NetBSD can run Xen dom0.

feld4• 11 years ago

FreeBSD may have that by FreeBSD 11

RexRollman• 11 years ago

I like them both and go back and forth between them. Right now, i have NetBSD installed and I am playing with Veriexec.

daurnimator• 11 years ago

NetBSD can be used as a rump kernel: http://wiki.netbsd.org/rumpkernel/

jeffreyrogers• 11 years ago

And related, why do people choose *BSD over Linux? (I'm genuinely interested, and not trying to start a flame war). I've used both OpenBSD and Linux on my personal computers, but only Linux for servers (mainly due to ease of setup). My understanding is that Linux has marginally better performance than any of the BSDs.

byuu3• 11 years ago

I initially went back to it over the way systemd was handled on Linux. Nowadays, I've really grown to appreciate the minimalism and the slower, more thorough pace of advancements. I find that being too cutting edge just tends to lead to more problems in production. I also really like the development model, and most design differences I read about (one quick example: /dev/random behavior) more in the BSDs. Lastly, lots of features I like a lot more. ZFS over btrfs, pf over iptables, etc.

bsder2• 11 years ago

ZFS and Dtrace. Full stop.

And I got completely tired of "distributionitis" on Linux--"Oh, you can't upgrade that particular package without upgrading every other package on the system."

kbenson• 11 years ago

OpenBSD does a damn good job as a stand in for crazily priced network equipment. Being able to run redundant firewalls with fail-over firewall state, IPSEC state, and IP addresses all supported natively with awesome documentation is a killer feature. I haven't had to do so in 5-6 years though, so maybe others have caught up.

bcook• 11 years ago

I choose BSD (as a router/firewall) because pf is more intuitive than iptables and tc. Go check out some manpages for tc and it's extended functionalities... awful documentation. I still use Linux as my desktop OS though.

mrweasel• 11 years ago

I would have picked OpenBSD over Linux for our production environment, if we didn't need the additional performance.

Modern Linux distros are messy and complex. I'm sure it's for good reason, they provider a ton of feature and tools for running very large installations. I just don't need that, we don't have more servers than you could reasonably manage manually.

I miss the consistency and simplicity of OpenBSD every time I log into one of our servers.

brynet• 11 years ago

"[NetBSD's] reallocarray was [just] fixed to behave like OpenBSD. Now it’s a 13 line replacement for a 10 line function. But at least it doesn’t have any code written by an OpenBSD developer."

agumonkey• 11 years ago

NihBSD.

bch• 11 years ago

> Was it really worth replacing one ten line function with another ten line function just to be different?
NihBSD

Or SourgrapesBSD ? It's not clear that this was written "just to be different".

aortega4• 11 years ago

The article missed:

1) W^X protections

2) ASLR

3) Stack canaries

4) strlcpy

5) OpenSSH!

6) Heap guard pages

7) Software NX

8) Etc.

Maybe project PAX invented some of those, but massive deployment was in OpenBSD first. Well if you can call them massive..

foodstances• 11 years ago

I think you missed the point of the article.

aortega4• 11 years ago

Probably.

Edit: Yes, I missed it.

_wmd2• 11 years ago

OpenSSH is a fork of the original SSHv1 written by a Finnish guy.

bsder2• 11 years ago

Because the license changed and said guy started expecting to be able to extort money out of people.

While the OpenBSD guys can be obnoxious twats at times, they were definitely in the right when they forked the OpenSSH code.

xnull6guest2• 11 years ago

The changes introduced are potentially extremely damaging. Take for example:

https://github.com/libressl-portable/openbsd/search?utf8=%E2...

talideon• 11 years ago

What's damaging about reallocarray?

xnull6guest2• 11 years ago

Did you read the article?

NetBSD's implementation, specifically with regard to how it handles deallocation, diverges from OpenBSDs - though its documentation is wrong.

LibreSSL (for example) will compile just fine on NetBSD, but as the logic of the two implementations differ so too will correct memory management in LibreSSL. This is just one example of how a port of secure code can be made insecure.

So it doesn't have to do with reallocarray specifically. It has to do with drawing out the security implications of the article under discussion.

kryptiskt• 11 years ago

The post on executable memory is a hundred times more interesting than this: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/now-or-never-exec

alexlarsson• 11 years ago

I don't understand how one can claim to "invent" reallocarray. Glib has had g_realloc_n() since 2010, but its not something being touted as a huge invention. Its a tiny helper. Very useful, but quite obvious.

dijit2• 11 years ago

I think the Author is saying that people often use BSD code or ideas and reimplement them to be fundamentally incompatible yet using the same name.

this means that, as a developer, when calling these functions you can't be sure of if you're calling it in a safe way.. openBSD makes code deliberately designed to be portable, and other BSD's make it non-portable by altering it in odd ways, yielding dangerous consequences by reusing the namespace.

fafner2• 11 years ago

NetBSD's strtoi and strtoimax seem like the better alternative to strtonum.

1. It is defined for intmax_t instead of long long.

2. It supports various bases. (At least I regularly need hex or base36)

3. It can deal with trailing characters.

4. There are matching strtou and strtoumax operations

It's of course bad if NetBSD introduces an strtonum, which behaves differently from the OpenBSD one. But maybe the OpenBSD folks should look into strtoi and strtoimax instead of blindly following their "invented here" principle...

darklajid4• 11 years ago

That's basically all mentioned in his post about the design [1] from 2011 and he seems to dismiss all these cases.

Is that reasonable? No clue, I don't write/know/do C..

1: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/the-design-of-strtonum

fafner2• 11 years ago

I don't think it's reasonable. The way they implemented strtonum might match their particular use case in OpenSSH/LibreSSL. But if they want to make it a libc function and popularise it then they should concern themselves with other use cases and opinions, especially when they pick a bold name as strtonum. It's not a surprising outcome that others are reluctant to follow them and they have clashes in behaviour or naming.

Invented by OpenBSD

Related Stories