From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 9 12:40:06 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 676A01065670 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:06 +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 567DC8FC08 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:06 +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 pB9Ce6Y5093113 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pB9Ce6X5093112; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:06 GMT Message-Id: <201112091240.pB9Ce6X5093112@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= 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: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:40:06 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/163076; it has been noted by GNATS. From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Jaakko Heinonen Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Petr Salinger , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, mdf@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/163076: It is not possible to read in chunks from linprocfs and procfs. Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:17:59 +0100 Jaakko Heinonen writes: > After looking at some code using sbufs I think that the sbuf(9) API > change done in r222004 is problematic. I agree, but it's far from the first poorly thought-out change in the sbuf API. The biggest mistake was to allow userland to use the same API and code rather than its own implementation of a subset of the API. > Could we just remove the error check from sbuf_len()? (patch below) I > have Cc'd more people. Why? > sbuf(9) manual page wrongly claims that sbuf_data() will return NULL if > the buffer has overflowed. This used to be the case. I don't know why I removed the check. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no