From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 9 16:10:11 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD3C1065670 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:10:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEA28FC19 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB9GABPs083511 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:10:11 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pB9GABlJ083510; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:10:11 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:10:11 GMT Message-Id: <201112091610.pB9GABlJ083510@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: mdf@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: kern/163076: It is not possible to read in chunks from linprocfs and procfs. X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mdf@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:10:11 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/163076; it has been noted by GNATS. From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: Jaakko Heinonen Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= , Poul-Henning Kamp , Petr Salinger , bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/163076: It is not possible to read in chunks from linprocfs and procfs. Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 07:33:46 -0800 2011/12/9 Jaakko Heinonen : > On 2011-12-09, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: >> > Could we just remove the error check from sbuf_len()? (patch below) I >> > have Cc'd more people. >> >> Why? > > As I wrote existing code depends on sbuf_len() to return the actual > length regardless of the error status after sbuf_finish(). I am not > willing to through all code using sbufs to check where it causes > problems. phk@ asserts that r222004 is correct. What is causing sbuf to have an error in the first place? The size of flies in /proc are generally small and malloc(3) errors are rare. Thanks, matthew