Subject: Re: CVS commit: syssrc/sys/net
To: Darren Reed <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/27/2002 01:17:28
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Darren Reed wrote:
> To each of 'these', I'm planning on adding this:
> /* XXX mbufs are not usually on the stack ... */
> m.m_type = -1;
> m.m_flags = 0;
> Before I *do* this, does anyone want to pipe up and say "bad boy, use
> MGET() to get a _real_ mbuf for this" ?
> The issue here is that if bpf_mtap() and further into the BPF code
> ever expect the pointer it gets passed to be a _real_ mbuf and tries
> to do things with it, it could run into trouble. The tradeoff is
> speed. I'm quite happy to put a large comment in bpf.c saying
> something along the lines of "not all mbufs are equal and don't
> ever try to alter the mbuf chain in here".
Would there be any sense in defining a macro to be used to
initialise any 'fake mbuf', so we can centralise exactly
what needs to happen to them?
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --