On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames...@darkjames.pl> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:32:07AM -0400, Evan Huus wrote: >> The fix is needed regardless of what else happens - even with the old >> old allocator this was still a bug >> (in the sl_ allocator, if not the ep_ one) > > Nah, sl_ allocator don't have this bug. > > 1. Right now sl_free_all() is never used > 2. even if it would be, there's no guard pages so > npc->buf is not shifted, and > npc->amount_free_init has correct size value. > > And I'm mainly worried about sl_ allocator, cause with that commit > I added another 12 bytes to emem_chunk_t... > >> I land proper sharing of free pages between pools then this path will >> probably stop being hit again (just like before). >> >> I don't want to make promises I can't keep, but I have an idea I'm >> pretty sure will work, and Thursday evening is looking promising for >> time to implement it. I'll make sure to test with both allocation >> schemes this time though! > > I still think that > https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5284#c26 > would also fix the problem, and we just unnecessary overcomplicate allocator.
Is that not the same idea Guy and Jeff discussed that earlier in the bug (comments 2 through 6)? ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
