From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 3 17:13:52 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1824616A422; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:13:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D39043D79; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:13:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from niksun.com (anuket [10.70.0.5]) by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k03HDhKI022875; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:13:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Darren Reed Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:13:00 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200512080005.jB8053R4099474@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051231145027.GB38051@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20051231145027.GB38051@hub.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200601031213.03328.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV devel-20050919/1226/Tue Jan 3 11:51:16 2006 on anuket.mj.niksun.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net bpf_filter.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:13:52 -0000 On Saturday 31 December 2005 09:50 am, Darren Reed wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:05:03AM +0000, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > jkim 2005-12-08 00:05:03 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/net bpf_filter.c > > Log: > > Do not accept an empty bpf program. > > You need to make one of two follow up changes here: > > 1) explicitly allow 0-length programs > > 2) fix bpf_filter (see the first check and its comments for "return > -1") > > Personally I'd prefer to see (1) because it allows you > to "set" a BPF program and measure the performance impact > of the BPF code on networking without having to worry > about the cost of executing the BPF program itself. Hmm... You're right. I will fix that. Thanks, Jung-uk Kim > Darren