> Pierre Beyssac wrote: > > > Wouldn't it be sensible to issue a warning (or panic) when > > increasing the reference count reaches 0, rather than causing a > > later kernel segfault? It would involve some overhead though, and > > I'm not sure having 2^32 routes is currently realistic since most > > machines don't even have that many bytes of RAM, but it might be > > true one day... > > It would be pretty hard to create 2^32 routes, given that IPv4 only > has 32-bit addresses. :-) Also, if you time it I suspect you'll find > that it would take a geological lifetime on a fast machine to add that > many routes.
But some of us are playing with IPv6 and it is easy to create >2^32 routes in that environment. > > I think it makes more sense to increase the size of the reference > count as discussed, rather than adding checks that add more complexity > and overhead. The checks could be added _today_ with very little testing needed, simple return an error if attempting to wrap the route ref count from 65536->0. At least then we don't blow chunks latter and end up segfaulting. This is a real bug fix. Even when the variable is increased in size to an int32_t it _should_ have an overflow test, not doing so is poor programming no matter how you cut it. -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgri...@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation, Inc. Reliable computers for FreeBSD http://www.aai.dnsmgr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
