From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 12 06:26:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA02515 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from citadel.cdsec.com (citadel.cdsec.com [192.96.22.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA02485; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by citadel.cdsec.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id PAA28654; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:30:06 +0200 (SAT) Received: by citadel via recvmail id 28618; Fri Sep 12 15:29:42 1997 by gram.cdsec.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA20383; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:02:31 +0200 (SAT) From: Graham Wheeler Message-Id: <199709121302.PAA20383@cdsec.com> Subject: Re: Memory leak in getservbyXXX? To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:02:30 +0200 (SAT) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199709121226.WAA02951@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Sep 12, 97 09:56:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25-h4.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi again If the problem is a memory leak in the stdio stuff, then it seems a reasonable assumption that if I do a setservent(1) at the start, that the problem will be circumvented, do you agree? I'm going to get the client to try this, and see what happens. If the problem does disappear, then it would be reasonable to conclude the hypothesis above; if it makes no difference then I will have to look again (but at least the core dumps should no longer be occuring in endservent then). cheers Graham -- Dr Graham Wheeler E-mail: gram@cdsec.com Citadel Data Security Phone: +27(21)23-6065/6/7 Internet/Intranet Network Specialists Mobile: +27(83)-253-9864 Firewalls/Virtual Private Networks Fax: +27(21)24-3656 Data Security Products WWW: http://www.cdsec.com/