From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  1 08:38:50 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE5B37B401
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 May 2003 08:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B8FF43F75
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 May 2003 08:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: (qmail 6285 invoked from network); 1 May 2003 15:38:48 -0000
Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70)
  by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 1 May 2003 15:38:48 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:38:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030501041210.A3514@xorpc.icir.org>
Message-ID: <20030501103520.S6445@odysseus.silby.com>
References: <20030430142532.F3741@odysseus.silby.com>
	<20030501041210.A3514@xorpc.icir.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Review needed: Mbuf double-free detection patch
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 15:38:51 -0000


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