From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 16 08:20:18 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 1E577106566C for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:20:18 +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 0C6C18FC0C for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:20:18 +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 pBG8KHCa050538 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:20:17 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pBG8KHWs050533; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:20:17 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:20:17 GMT Message-Id: <201112160820.pBG8KHWs050533@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Jaakko Heinonen 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: Jaakko Heinonen List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:20:18 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/163076; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jaakko Heinonen To: Petr Salinger , Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= , 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, 16 Dec 2011 10:19:35 +0200 On 2011-12-13, Petr Salinger wrote: > Will be this regression corrected for 9.0 release ? AFAIK it's too late to get such patch approved for 9.0. > Previously (in stable-8), the sbuf_finish() cleared the overflow error. > It used to return void, and as noted previously, > only 21 of 133 calls check return value of sbuf_finish(), > i.e. only 1/6 have been migrated to new API semantics. > > What about restore clearing of error during sbuf_finish() for stable-9 > and do the right thing in HEAD ? If nobody can suggest a better alternative, I am inclined to say that I'd like to see the change reverted until someone volunteers to fix callers. I don't say that r222004 is incorrect but the fact is that sbuf_finish() didn't return an error for a long time (almost 10 years) and when the API was changed it looks like API consumers weren't changed along. I am willing to help but currently I have no idea how to fix pseudofs with the new API semantics. I don't like the patch posted because it allocates an excessively large buffer on every read. -- Jaakko