This reads like Claude wrote it (more than ChatGPT.) Interesting data but I am unsure how actionable it is. Are they suggesting, for example, that specific commit messages get scanner more closely? Why is CAN more severe than Intel? (It does worry me. I feel like bugs, of any sort, in car systems are terrifying.)

▲

aDyslecticCrow 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> CAN more severe than Intel

I suspect the usage of the CAN driver in Linux is pretty low. The largest user of the Linux can driver is likely testing and diagnostics tooling for developing cars rather than the car themselves. Even when the car has a Linux computer, they often use multi CPU SOC's that run the real-time CAN logic separate from Linux, and only convey application logic into Linux.

I could also speculate that the overlap between Linux kernel developers and automotive and industrial embedded systems is pretty low. So the high bug severity in the CAN driver could be developers contributing patches from a very different programming background?

	▲	myself248 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I could also speculate that the overlap between Linux kernel developers and automotive and industrial embedded systems is pretty low. Agreed. > So the high bug severity in the CAN driver could be developers contributing patches from a very different programming background? Background and situation. Their mindset is "I need this to work, right now", not "I need this to work, and not break anything else, forever".
	▲	earthscienceman 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There are so many more embedded CAN systems beyond cars. Industrial battery management uses Linux and canbus, for example.