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.
