Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:20:01 -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: <199806031220.FAA21660@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/6837; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
To: Craig Metz <cmetz@inner.net>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, wollman@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kern/6837: in_setpeeraddr() and in_setsockaddr() block on memory
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 05:11:02 -0700
>In message <199806031159.EAA22091@implode.root.com>, you write:
>>> The other, far easier to explain answer, is that we're putting some code in
>>>there for IPv6 support that makes the malloc() happen at splnet(), and
>>>tsleep()ing at such a priority is not good.
>>
>> That would be bad, but I don't think the solution is to make it fail on
>>temporary resource shortages. I think a better solution would be to change
>>the functions to take an already (m)alloced struct sockaddr_in and change
>>the callers (I think there are only two) to accomodate.
>
> In 4.4-Lite2, they did basically just that. Why did they change?
I believe this was a side effect of the elimination of using mbufs as
containers for sockaddr data. I don't see a problem with changing the caller
to malloc(), but perhaps Garrett might have a thought on this since he was
the one to add the MALLOC there in the first place. Garrett?
-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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806031220.FAA21660>