Mountain Biking Helps Squash Bugs

Dr.Milius writes "Henning Brauer of the OpenBSD project recently made an interesting post to the openbsd-tech mailing list about how a mountain bike ride helped him relate two baffling bugs in their new BGP and NTP daemons. It turns out they were both off-by-one errors that were easy to fix but notoriously difficult to spot. Always great when the experts show us how it's done."

Comments

RTFB

[Anonymous Coward]

Ride the fucking bicycle.

road bike..

[MoOsEb0y]

I wonder what effect a road bike would have upon bugs? I mean, one could go faster in the flats where bugs are likely to reside, but at the same time, wider tires would allow one to run over more ants. Oh, the dillemmas!

not difficult to spot at all

[jeif1k]

It is ironic that people, on the one hand, fool themselves into thinking that these things don't happen to them, and on the other hand, have to go off bug hunting for days to find "baffling bugs". How much more productively could that development time have been spent?

Face it, memory corruption bugs, off-by-one-errors, and all that, happen to even the most experienced and careful programmers. The way to deal with them is to use programming languages that detect them reliably. In different words, we need to retire C or fix C.

And, no, "retiring C" doesn't mean switching to Java or C#. Instead, it means switching to a systems programming language that has error checking by default but still gives you all the low-level features you need when you need them. There have been a number of such languages over the years, but, unfortunately, they were all killed by C, not because C was better, but because C shipped with UNIX.

Re:not difficult to spot at all

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

How is bounds checking inefficient if it protects you from nasty off-by-one errors and evil buffer overflows? Or are you one of those short-sighted programmers who believes cheap CPU clock time is more important than very expensive human time (i.e. time wasted dealing with crappy programming languages and debugging stupid bounds problems, or worse, money lost because a critical bit of information was destroyed, altered, or disclosed due to a buffer overflow vulnerability)?

And yes, those were both rhetorical questions. I am sick and tired of crappy, bug-ridden software that doesn't do proper input and bounds checking. As far as I'm concerned, it's the programmers fault, either because she didn't write the bounds checks in manually or because he's not using a modern programming language (where "modern" == "not a glorified assembler"). You all aren't Mel, who can write practically perfect programs while sleepwalking, so don't give me a load of crap about how bloated your program would be if it was actually written properly. As a computer security guy, I am sick and tired of cleaning up after the exploits you all apparently work so hard to code into your software.

</rant>