Also, the Linux kernel having far more CVE assignments than say the FreeBSD kernel doesn't mean it's less secure or had more vulnerabilities. In fact, the lack of security research / fuzzing / dynamic analysis being done to find these bugs in other kernels is a very bad thing.
Conversation
Minor nit: Nowadays FreeBSD is being both fuzzed by syzkaller and has clang and other analyzers run against it with the analysis target of bmake, as well as coverty doing static analysis.
Still wouldn't be a bad thing to have more security research being done on FreeBSD, though.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I respect Daniel (not _just_ because we have first names in common :P), but I've heard that argument made elsewhere and I got the understand that it was on the basis of Coverty not being worth setting up - not necessarily that it's worth tearing down if it's already working?
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
FreeBSD does care about code quality, though - everything from style upwards gets brought up regularily.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This makes sense when you understand that his criterion for "works well" is "provides a proof of correctness" rather than "assists humans in avoiding most bugs".
1
That's not at all what I said, although I would certainly disagree that external static analyzers are going to help you avoid *most bugs*. They help to identify a few of the bugs in some common bug classes and it works better when the language/programmer is actively helping them.
I think it would be reasonable to argue that a very strong, but still very usable type system can help avoid most bugs. I'm not so sure about that. It can definitely help avoid the vast majority of *severe* vulnerabilities. Avoiding most bugs is a very different thing.
1