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 --