From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr  8 12:16:22 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 11E5816A4CE; Thu,  8 Apr 2004 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A86D343D46; Thu,  8 Apr 2004 12:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28])
          by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP
          id <20040408191620016003h5f1e>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:16:21 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA64404;
	Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20040408190121.407A516A4D3@hub.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404081209290.63085-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ng_bridge(4) has an easily exploitable memory leak
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:16:22 -0000


Ruslan,
B
IGNORE THE PREVIOUS EMAIL

I was looking at how the macro expanded in -current, not in -stable..


[...]
> 
> 
> I leave it up to you to decide which you prefer, (but remember that
> NG_SEND_DATA is a macro and expads somewhat.
> 
> specifically, to (sorry about linewrap):
> #define NG_SEND_DATA(error, hook, m, meta)    \
>         do {\
>                 item_p _item;                 \
>                 if ((_item = ng_package_data((m), (meta)))) {\
>                         NG_FWD_ITEM_HOOK(error, _item, hook);    \
>                 } else { \
>                         (error) = ENOMEM;     \   
>                 }\   
>                 (m) = NULL;   \
>                 (meta) = NULL;      \
>         } while (0)
> 
> where NG_FWD_ITEM_HOOK
> itself expands to:
> #define NG_FWD_ITEM_HOOK(error, item, hook)   \
>         do { \
>                 (error) = \
>                     ng_address_hook(NULL, (item), (hook), 0);   \
>                 if (error == 0) { \
> 			SAVE_LINE(item);      \
>                         (error) = ng_snd_item((item), 0);   \ 
>                 } \
>                 (item) = NULL;         \ 
>         } while (0)
>  
> so only having one of those saves a bit of code.
> 

Maybe I should listen to myself and fix -current to follow my own
advice!