From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 7 23:20:45 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F25416A41F for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:20:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91D243D70 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:20:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jB7NK8j8086833 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id jB7NK8r5086832; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:20:08 GMT Message-Id: <200512072320.jB7NK8r5086832@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Guy Harris Cc: Subject: Re: kern/89752: [bpf] [patch] bpf_validate() needs to do more checks X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Guy Harris List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:20:45 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/89752; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Guy Harris To: Jung-uk Kim Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/89752: [bpf] [patch] bpf_validate() needs to do more checks Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:11:03 -0800 On Dec 7, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > It looks good but `bpf_maxbufsize' may be unavailable to other > consumers such as ng_bpf(4) and it doesn't make sense to them. Then that check can probably be removed - OpenBSD's consumers might all use bpf_maxbufsize, so it was OK for them, and it's just an optimization anyway (as the comment says, a "More strict check with actual packet length is done runtime"). (BTW, this was from OpenBSD; if you check it in, say it's from Otto Moerbeek's changes to OpenBSD, do *NOT* give me direct credit for it!)