Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:40:01 -0700 (PDT) From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/6837: in_setpeeraddr() and in_setsockaddr() block on memory Message-ID: <199806030340.UAA18610@freefall.freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
The following reply was made to PR kern/6837; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
To: cmetz@inner.net
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kern/6837: in_setpeeraddr() and in_setsockaddr() block on memory
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 20:37:35 -0700
>These two functions now MALLOC their address parameter inline rather
>than having the address buffer passed in. They do so with M_WAITOK,
>which will tsleep() the process indefinitely waiting for the memory.
>Granted, if you're that short on memory on a BSD system, you'll have
>bigger problems, but IMO these functions should kick ENOBUFS back up the
>stack and get out of kernel mode (thus freeing up some other buffer
>memory) rather than block the process.
Why do you think it should be that way? It won't be an indefinate wait,
just a wait until memory is freed up which shouldn't be for very long.
-DG
David Greenman
Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806030340.UAA18610>