From owner-cvs-all Wed Sep 5 15:29:29 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF0437B403; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dec@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f85MTNJ32998; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:29:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dec) Message-Id: <200109052229.f85MTNJ32998@freefall.freebsd.org> From: "David E. Cross" Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:29:23 -0700 (PDT) To: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/rpc svc_tcp.c svc_unix.c X-FreeBSD-CVS-Branch: RELENG_4 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG dec 2001/09/05 15:29:23 PDT Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_4) lib/libc/rpc svc_tcp.c svc_unix.c Log: Submitted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Obtained from: MFC after: N/A, -CURRENT no longer uses this code The patch in 1.28.2.1 was in error. It used FD_ZERO on the fds (fdset) structure, but this is a dunamically allocated array that is only as big as it needs to be. The result of calling FD_ZERO on it would be that it would either overwrite random data in the data-segment, happen to be just the right size and work correctly, or not zero out all of the data it was supposed to. The first case is far more likely (and damaging). This code has been in extensive testing here. And was approved by the release engineers for this last minute push. Revision Changes Path 1.18.2.3 +2 -2 src/lib/libc/rpc/Attic/svc_tcp.c 1.7.2.2 +2 -2 src/lib/libc/rpc/Attic/svc_unix.c To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message