Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:38:22 +0200 From: Pawel Malachowski <pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl> To: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> Cc: ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (not) Protecting of case IP_FW_GET. Message-ID: <20040825113822.GC57463@shellma.zin.lublin.pl> In-Reply-To: <20040825111911.GE92931@elvis.mu.org> References: <20040825110455.GB57463@shellma.zin.lublin.pl> <20040825111911.GE92931@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:19:11PM +0200, Maxime Henrion 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. malloc(9) states that. What would happen, if one tries to malloc more memory than we physically have, with M_WAITOK flag -- will it eat all available memory and wait forever for more? -- Paweł Małachowski
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040825113822.GC57463>