Huge thanks to our Platinum Members Endace and LiveAction,
and our Silver Member Veeam, for supporting the Wireshark Foundation and project.

Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 4140] emem patches

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4140


Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Attachment #3807|                            |review_for_checkin?
               Flag|                            |




--- Comment #5 from Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  2009-10-20 00:10:20 PDT ---
Created an attachment (id=3807)
 --> (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3807)
Embed canary list inside chunk data.

Recently [1] on wireshark-dev there were discussion how big
EMEM_ALLOCS_PER_CHUNK should be.

It might be better to remove emem_canary_t, and store pointer to next item
after canary.

Canary has at least 8 bytes, so it would be quite strange if pointer will be
corrupted after that 8 bytes.

It's just proof of concept, and I'm not 100% sure if it's good idea or not :)

[1] http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/200910/msg00015.html


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.