On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Jakub Zawadzki
<darkjames-ws@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:32:07AM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
>> The fix is needed regardless of what else happens - even with the old
>> old allocator this was still a bug
>> (in the sl_ allocator, if not the ep_ one)
>
> Nah, sl_ allocator don't have this bug.
>
> 1. Right now sl_free_all() is never used
> 2. even if it would be, there's no guard pages so
> npc->buf is not shifted, and
> npc->amount_free_init has correct size value.
>
> And I'm mainly worried about sl_ allocator, cause with that commit
> I added another 12 bytes to emem_chunk_t...
>
>> I land proper sharing of free pages between pools then this path will
>> probably stop being hit again (just like before).
>>
>> I don't want to make promises I can't keep, but I have an idea I'm
>> pretty sure will work, and Thursday evening is looking promising for
>> time to implement it. I'll make sure to test with both allocation
>> schemes this time though!
>
> I still think that https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5284#c26
> would also fix the problem, and we just unnecessary overcomplicate allocator.
Is that not the same idea Guy and Jeff discussed that earlier in the
bug (comments 2 through 6)?
