Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] COPY_ADDRESS and g_malloc()
From: LEGO <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:46:15 +0000
There is another issue, currently COPY_ADDRESS is to be given a
pointer to the address structure to be populated, whose lifetime might
be whatever (stack, se-heap, ep-heap, pe-heap) and not linked to
whatever populates the structure.

I believe that we should have two sets of COPY_ADDRESS one that
returns a newly allocated and populated address struct
(XX_DUP_ADDRESS), and another that does what it's currently being done
(XX_COPY_ADDRESS).

Luis

On 11/13/06, Kukosa, Tomas <[email protected]> wrote:
I have got the same idea meantime.

T.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LEGO
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:33 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] COPY_ADDRESS and g_malloc()

may be we should have EP_COPY_ADDRESS, SE_COPY_ADDRESS and
PE_COPY_ADDRESS instead.


On 11/13/06, Kukosa, Tomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> does not it make sence to change g_malloc() in COPY_ADDRESS to
> se_alloc() ?
> It seems that it is not freed in most cases of usage.
> Do wee need anywhere longer lifetime then se_alloc() has?
>
> Tomas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>


--
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy
yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev


--
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan