Live data from Hacker News

Kernel bugs hide for 2 years on average. Some hide for 20

pebblebed.com

1–10 of 186 posts

Re: Kernel bugs hide for 2 years on average. Some hide for 20

#5
post #3

Millions of lines of code, all running in supervisor mode. One bug is all it takes to compromise the entire system. The monolithic UNIX kernel was a good design in the 60s; Today, we should know better[0][1]. 0. https://sel4.systems/ 1. https://genode.org/

Yeah cause windows is amazing Or maybe macos? Ignore their freebsd parts of course.

Re: Kernel bugs hide for 2 years on average. Some hide for 20

#7
post #3

Millions of lines of code, all running in supervisor mode. One bug is all it takes to compromise the entire system. The monolithic UNIX kernel was a good design in the 60s; Today, we should know better[0][1]. 0. https://sel4.systems/ 1. https://genode.org/

Yeah cause windows is amazing Or maybe macos? Ignore their freebsd parts of course.

Yes. As far as kernels go, NT was pretty damn good.

So is Mach, by the way, if you can afford the microkernel performance overhead.

Re: Kernel bugs hide for 2 years on average. Some hide for 20

#8
From the stats we see that most bugs effectively come from the limitations of the language.

Impressive results on the model, I'm surprised they improved it with very simple heuristics. Hopefully this tool will be made available to the kernel developers and integrated to the workflow.

Re: Kernel bugs hide for 2 years on average. Some hide for 20

#9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah cause windows is amazing Or maybe macos? Ignore their freebsd parts of course.

Yes. As far as kernels go, NT was pretty damn good. So is Mach, by the way, if you can afford the microkernel performance overhead.

If you include all the drivers too (which surely makes the comparison more accurate), is that still the case?
Post reply on HN