Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 07:02:33 +0100 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [patch] Verify that ifaddr_byindex(foo) != NULL Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.1.20040505065826.03e1d510@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20040504063500.A37862@xorpc.icir.org> References: <6.1.0.6.1.20040504133711.03d1ce18@popserver.sfu.ca> <20040504063500.A37862@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 14:35 04/05/2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Colin Percival wrote: >> if we're going to check that >> 0 < ifp->if_index <= if_index, it seems that we should also be >> checking that ifp->if_index corresponds to an interface which >> still exists (rather than a gap left behind when an interface was >> removed). > >well, the problem here and elsewhere is whether we trust the rcvif >field or not Right; I wasn't sure if we did trust it. In particular, I wonder about packets received immediately before an interface is removed. >So i'd vote to remove all the bogus checks here and elsewhere, rather >than add newer ones. If the check is unnecessary, by all means remove it; but the current situation, where a check is half-performed, is certainly not correct. :-) Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.1.0.6.1.20040505065826.03e1d510>