From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Jun 3 05:20:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA01610 for freebsd-bugs-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:20:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA01585 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:20:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) id FAA21665; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806031220.FAA21665@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG From: Craig Metz Subject: Re: kern/6837: in_setpeeraddr() and in_setsockaddr() block on memory Reply-To: Craig Metz Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/6837; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Craig Metz To: dg@root.com 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 08:12:18 -0300 In message <199806031211.FAA22165@implode.root.com>, you write: >> 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? Perhaps it's because only the PF-specific setsockaddr/setpeeraddr function knows the exact size to allocate. Moving the malloc up a level in the heirarchy won't actually change the problem of blocking or not if there's not enough memory for the buffer to hold this, though. -Craig To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message