From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 10 17:40:08 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 99373106564A for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:08 +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 88EC28FC0C for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:08 +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 pBAHe8ZB063921 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pBAHe8wP063920; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:08 GMT Message-Id: <201112101740.pBAHe8wP063920@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: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:08 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/163076; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jaakko Heinonen To: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= 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: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:35:43 +0200 On 2011-12-10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Jaakko Heinonen writes: > > Could you give an example about such state? Isn't the length first > > initialized to zero and then increased only when byte(s) has been > > successfully appended to the buffer? sbuf_len() has worked for > > unfinished buffers since r71724. > > A fixed-length sbuf may overflow intentionally (as in pseudofs) or > unintentionally; a dynamic sbuf may also overflow due to a memory > allocation failure. The first two cases are expected, but the third is > not, and I am not sure the sbuf should be considered valid in such a > case. Thanks, I see your point. However, currently after a memory allocation failure, finishing the buffer is allowed and sbuf_data() will return the buffer. According to phk@ sbuf_finish() should finish any buffer. -- Jaakko