From owner-cvs-all Sat Jul 24 2:16:33 1999 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles534.castles.com [208.214.165.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFB914EB6; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:16:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA00421; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:09:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199907240909.CAA00421@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Brian Somers Cc: John-Mark Gurney , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if_tun.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:51:00 BST." <199907240251.DAA03865@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:09:23 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > jmg 1999/07/23 13:08:28 PDT > > > > Modified files: > > sys/net if_tun.c > > Log: > > fix a problem w/ zero byte writes to the tunnel device. It would bypass > > the loop and not set an error, so we would then try to access an invalid > > mbuf... > > I don't think I agree that writing 0 bytes should result in EIO, > perhaps EINVAL would be more apt ? I'd actually say that it's not an error to write 0 bytes. The routine should do nothing and return success, or write a packet with no contents (depending on the assumed semantics of the tun device). -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message