On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 09:02 -0700, Joe Pruett wrote:
> i was to onervous to try the real patch for now. so i just quickly hacked
> in another buffer using the MAX_IFC_LEN. so far it seems to be happy. i
> guess i'll find out about the new malloc setup when i go to 5.3.
Don't get me wrong, I think your caution is a sensible and responsible
approach to an unknown patch. I understand this only too well.
>
> diff -ru autofs-5.0.1/modules/replicated.c autofs-new/modules/replicated.c
> --- autofs-5.0.1/modules/replicated.c 2008-09-16 12:08:03.000000000 -0700
> +++ autofs-new/modules/replicated.c 2008-09-17 08:01:58.000000000 -0700
> @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
> {
> struct sockaddr_in *msk_addr, *if_addr;
> struct in_addr *hst_addr;
> - char tmp[20], buf[MAX_ERR_BUF], *ptr;
> + char tmp[20], buf[MAX_ERR_BUF], ibuf[MAX_IFC_BUF], *ptr;
> struct ifconf ifc;
> struct ifreq *ifr, nmptr;
> int sock, cl_flags, ret, i;
> @@ -122,8 +122,8 @@
> fcntl(sock, F_SETFD, cl_flags);
> }
>
> - ifc.ifc_len = sizeof(buf);
> - ifc.ifc_req = (struct ifreq *) buf;
> + ifc.ifc_len = sizeof(ibuf);
> + ifc.ifc_req = (struct ifreq *) ibuf;
> ret = ioctl(sock, SIOCGIFCONF, &ifc);
> if (ret == -1) {
> char *estr = strerror_r(errno, buf, MAX_ERR_BUF);
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@
> i = 0;
> ptr = (char *) &ifc.ifc_buf[0];
>
> - while (ptr < buf + ifc.ifc_len) {
> + while (ptr < ibuf + ifc.ifc_len) {
> ifr = (struct ifreq *) ptr;
>
> switch (ifr->ifr_addr.sa_family) {
> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@
> i = 0;
> ptr = (char *) &ifc.ifc_buf[0];
>
> - while (ptr < buf + ifc.ifc_len) {
> + while (ptr < ibuf + ifc.ifc_len) {
> ifr = (struct ifreq *) ptr;
>
> switch (ifr->ifr_addr.sa_family) {
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
