tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

"wireguard" implementation improperly merged and needs revert

Hi Taylor/Ozaki-san/NetBSD developers,

I'm very excited that NetBSD is enthusiastic about WireGuard. Having
more deployment of WireGuard is always great to hear. And NetBSD is
really a terrific project. I've been enthusiastic about using it for
rump kernels for many years, and adding WireGuard capability there
sounds great. WireGuard is not just a protocol; the project also
comprises a set of implementations that meet a certain set of
behaviors and security criteria. I would be very happy to have a
proper WireGuard implementation inside of NetBSD.

However, I think you've gravely jumped the gun attempting to add
"wireguard" support to NetBSD. It's with great sadness that I ask you
to revert those commits from yesterday that added it, until we can
actually work on this together to make a real WireGuard

I've had no communication with Taylor/Ozaki-san or other NetBSD
developers about this, and can't find any record of anyone reaching
out to me, which is a bummer. But now that we're in touch, I'd like to
offer full support of these efforts, from myself and from the project
in general. In about a week (~Sept 1), I'll be back at my desk full
time, and will have tons of energy to throw at this, in order to get
this code up to snuff.

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.

Some background: recently, as I'm sure you're aware, WireGuard shipped
for OpenBSD. This was a year+ effort, with Matt and I working closely
together to get a high quality WireGuard implementation. And actually,
we wrote that to be as reusable by other BSDs as possible. It seems
like it might be possible to inherit a lot of that code, which has
already been refined and debugged, for NetBSD. This is, for example,
what we're currently working on for the upcoming FreeBSD

On the other hand, if Ozaki-san is wedded to his codebase, and
believes there are distinct and important advantages to its structure,
I have no objection to working with him on that as a starting point.
In other words, I have no desire to impose anything unwanted on NetBSD
engineering trajectory in this, but if you're going to land a
WireGuard implementation, it needs to be done right, and I gladly
volunteer my time and energy into helping to make that happen.

So, it's a bit of a shame that this is my "hello, <wave>" email to the
NetBSD community -- I would have liked to meet you all more jovally --
but I feel very strongly about not ruining WireGuard. And what you
committed yesterday simply is not a WireGuard implementation. Could
you please move ahead with reverting that, and starting on Sept 1,
I'll make myself available to work with you on actually getting things
rolling properly? I can be available as much as is needed on IRC or
video chat or whatever other form works best for working together. I
would really appreciate that, and it would get us off on the right
foot, instead of the current rocky road we're staring down.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index