From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 25 11:19:11 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3806F16A4CE
	for <ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:19:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD1E43D49
	for <ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:19:11 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from mux@freebsd.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1920)
	id 23DF75C8D8; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 04:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:19:11 +0200
From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org>
To: Pawel Malachowski <pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl>
Message-ID: <20040825111911.GE92931@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20040825110455.GB57463@shellma.zin.lublin.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040825110455.GB57463@shellma.zin.lublin.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
cc: ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: (not) Protecting of case IP_FW_GET.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:19:11 -0000

Pawel Malachowski wrote:
> Another thing, in HEAD, there are three mallocs with M_WAITOK flag, only
> one of them checks if malloc succeed (lookup tables code) and returns
> ENOMEM, if not. Another two are assuming malloc will always succeed.
> In RELENG_4, result is checked and ENOBUFS (why not ENOMEM?) is returned
> if malloc failed.

The case where it checks the return value of malloc() is wrong.  When
called with the M_WAITOK flag, malloc() is not supposed to return NULL.

Cheers,
Maxime