Steve French wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2007 7:03 AM, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Steve French wrote:
>>
>>> That might be better, although without memory pools, this would perform
>>> much worse
>>>
>>>
>> Why ? I don't get your point here.
>>
> What I meant is
On Nov 10, 2007 7:03 AM, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve French wrote:
> > That might be better, although without memory pools, this would perform
> > much worse
> >
> Why ? I don't get your point here.
>
> Przemyslaw
>
What I meant is that two fixed size memory pools rather
Steve French wrote:
> below. The obvious need is to create an SendReceive-NoResponse (or
> equivalent) which
> frees the SMB request buffer after send, and does not copy into an smb
> response buffer. The following functions need to be changed to use
>
How about modifying SendReceive to behav
I have done an analysis of the SMB functions (56 callers of
SendReceive, 4 of SendReceive2 and 2 callers of
SendReceiveBlockingLock) and found additional changes which should
help performance, by reducing the number of expensive large buffer
allocations and also by freeing buffers back to the pool
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> Steve French wrote:
> > You are correct that the CIFS code calls SendReceive in cases in which
> > the buffer may be too small to fit a large SMB response, and that
> > should be fixed (e.g. to avoid possible overflows due to a s
Steve French wrote:
> You are correct that the CIFS code calls SendReceive in cases in which
> the buffer may be too small to fit a large SMB response, and that
> should be fixed (e.g. to avoid possible overflows due to a server
> bug), None of the eight cases (SMB TreeDisconnect, SMB uLogoff, SMB
- and the easier way to handle this seems to be
changing the eight places in fs/cifs/cifssmb.c which call
small_smb_init and then call SendReceive, to call SendReceive2
instead.
> From: Przemyslaw Wegrzyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Buffer overf
Not everyone has the time to read lkml. Added Steve to Cc:, just in
case.
On Thu, 8 November 2007 22:20:03 +0100, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
> I was looking at CIFS VFS code recently, trying to solve other issue,
> just to find something that looks like a buffer overflow bug.
> The problem is
Hello all,
I was looking at CIFS VFS code recently, trying to solve other issue,
just to find something that looks like a buffer overflow bug.
The problem is in SendReceive() function in transport.c - it memcpy's
message payload into a buffer passed via out_buf param. The function
assumes that al
9 matches
Mail list logo
