Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:38:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Review needed: Mbuf double-free detection patch Message-ID: <20030501103520.S6445@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20030501041210.A3514@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20030430142532.F3741@odysseus.silby.com> <20030501041210.A3514@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > as Bosko noticed, it would be a good idea to make the change to subr_mbuf.c > conditionally compiled under DIAGNOSTIC or INVARIANTS or the like. Hsu already convinced me to put it under INVARIANTS in private mail. > I was actually wondering if you have caught already any bug > with this code enabled. Nope, not yet. I was just trying to figure out how mbuf free list corruption could occur, and a double-free seemed to be an obvious thing to try. Once I found how much it messed things up, I came up with this patch. > [on a side note, it is a bit depressing to see the same > code replicated twice, in m_free() and m_freem(). Couldn't > one try to make m_freem() just call m_free() in a loop and > save some code bloat ? I doubt the extra function call > would harm performance too much.] > > cheers > luigi Someone seems to have placed a SEP field around that paragraph, I'm having trouble reading it. :) Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030501103520.S6445>