Brilliant! And it even works!
Now if the kernel hadn't screwed up in the first place, then
your expertise wouldn't have been needed.
Thanks.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Eric Dumazet wrote:
linux-os wrote:
I don't know how much more precise I could have been. I show the
code that will cause the observed c
linux-os wrote:
I don't know how much more precise I could have been. I show the
code that will cause the observed condition. I explain that this
condition is new, that it doesn't correspond to the previous
behavior.
Never before was some buffer checked for length before some data
was written to i
linux-os wrote:
I don't know how much more precise I could have been. I show the
code that will cause the observed condition. I explain that this
condition is new, that it doesn't correspond to the previous
behavior.
Never before was some buffer checked for length before some data
was written to it
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 07:29 -0500, linux-os wrote:
This means that the read() is no longer perfectly happy
to corrupt all of the user's memory which is the defacto
correct response for a bad buffer as shown. Instead, some
added "check in software" claims to
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 07:29 -0500, linux-os wrote:
> This means that the read() is no longer perfectly happy
> to corrupt all of the user's memory which is the defacto
> correct response for a bad buffer as shown. Instead, some
> added "check in software" claims to prevent this, but
> is wrong an
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Tom Felker wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 11:59 am, linux-os wrote:
The attached file shows that the kernel thinks it's doing
something helpful by checking the length of the input
buffer for a read(). It will return "Bad Address" until
the length is 1632 bytes. Apparently the
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Robert Hancock wrote:
linux-os wrote:
The attached file shows that the kernel thinks it's doing
something helpful by checking the length of the input
buffer for a read(). It will return "Bad Address" until
the length is 1632 bytes. Apparently the kernel thinks
1632 is a good l
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 11:59 am, linux-os wrote:
> The attached file shows that the kernel thinks it's doing
> something helpful by checking the length of the input
> buffer for a read(). It will return "Bad Address" until
> the length is 1632 bytes. Apparently the kernel thinks
> 1632 is a good
linux-os wrote:
The attached file shows that the kernel thinks it's doing
something helpful by checking the length of the input
buffer for a read(). It will return "Bad Address" until
the length is 1632 bytes. Apparently the kernel thinks
1632 is a good length!
Likely because only 1632 bytes of me
The attached file shows that the kernel thinks it's doing
something helpful by checking the length of the input
buffer for a read(). It will return "Bad Address" until
the length is 1632 bytes. Apparently the kernel thinks
1632 is a good length!
Did anybody consider the overhead necessary to do th
10 matches
Mail list logo
