https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
Oleksandr Tymoshenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||go...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
--- Comment #7 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: rodrigc
Date: Sat Nov 14 23:07:39 UTC 2015
New revision: 290835
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/290835
Log:
Implemtn getdtablecount()
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
Mark Linimon lini...@freebsd.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
--- Comment #2 from David CARLIER david.carl...@hardenedbsd.org ---
https://github.com/HardenedBSD/hardenedBSD/issues/63
So mm@ would not need to silent getdtablecount calls anymore.
So right, FILEDESC_SLOCK should protect f_dp field
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
--- Comment #3 from David CARLIER david.carl...@hardenedbsd.org ---
Created attachment 149376
-- https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149376action=edit
Updated kern code patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
--- Comment #4 from Mateusz Guzik m...@freebsd.org ---
+p = td-td_proc;
+PROC_LOCK(p);
+fdp = p-p_fd;
+FILEDESC_SLOCK(fdp);
+td-td_retval[0] = fdp-fd_openfd;
+FILEDESC_SUNLOCK(fdp);
+PROC_UNLOCK(p);
proc lock
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
--- Comment #5 from David CARLIER david.carl...@hardenedbsd.org ---
Fair enough I ll prepare a new version then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194985
--- Comment #6 from Mateusz Guzik m...@freebsd.org ---
So to be clear, I'm not convinced a syscall like this is needed, but I'm not
going to oppose inclusion in the tree, regardless of implementation. This also
means I'm not going to commit
