On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 02:52:39PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 07:44:02PM +0800, Nan Xiao wrote: > > Use BUFSIZE instead of hard-code in netcat.c, FYI. Thanks! > > As this buffer is used with MSG_PEEK and its content is discarded, > the size does not really matter. The complicated logic seems to > be a leftover from the -j jumbo option. > > I think this is simpler. > > bluhm > > Index: usr.bin/nc/netcat.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /data/mirror/openbsd/cvs/src/usr.bin/nc/netcat.c,v > retrieving revision 1.187 > diff -u -p -r1.187 netcat.c > --- usr.bin/nc/netcat.c 15 Jul 2017 17:27:39 -0000 1.187 > +++ usr.bin/nc/netcat.c 24 Oct 2017 12:41:38 -0000 > @@ -563,13 +563,12 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) > * initially to wait for a caller, then use > * the regular functions to talk to the caller. > */ > - int rv, plen; > - char buf[16384]; > + int rv; > + char buf[2048]; > struct sockaddr_storage z; > > len = sizeof(z); > - plen = 2048; > - rv = recvfrom(s, buf, plen, MSG_PEEK, > + rv = recvfrom(s, buf, sizeof(buf), MSG_PEEK, > (struct sockaddr *)&z, &len); > if (rv < 0) > err(1, "recvfrom"); >
Doesn't this have a performance impact? A bigger buffer like the original seems better to me. -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
