From owner-freebsd-current  Sat May  8  8:41:31 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E38FA14F5E
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 May 1999 08:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id PAA07452; Sat, 8 May 1999 15:32:33 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <199905081332.PAA07452@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: m_get(M_WAIT, ...) _can_ return NULL ?
To: current@freebsd.org
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:32:33 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 567       
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Hi,

thinking about the supposed "fragility" of FreeBSD when mbufs (or
clusters) are not properly dimensioned: i notice that
in various places of the code (and this is, i think, 4.4 heritage),
there are things like

	m = m_get(M_WAIT, ...)
	m->m_len = something.

looking at the code, it seems that m_get() _can_ return a NULL pointer
even if one specifies M_WAIT.

Could this be a potential weakness, and in this case, how shuld we go
and fix it -- by making m_get never return if there is no memory,
or by hunting all such occurrences of the code ?

	cheers
	luigi


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message