This is the mail archive of the
ecos-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: [ECOS] Re: Improving TFTP performance
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- To: Øyvind Harboe <oyvind dot harboe at zylin dot com>
- Cc: eCos Disuss <ecos-patches at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:10:26 +0000
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: Improving TFTP performance
- Openpgp: id=A5FB74E6
- References: <c09652430712190104v180581bck61f9cdaf852f249e@mail.gmail.com> <c09652430712190238q3f36a54ai96a226983d82635e@mail.gmail.com> <20071219112458.GB5944@lunn.ch> <c09652430712190553x6f616723oefeb864abbc46d66@mail.gmail.com> <20071219141733.GD5944@lunn.ch> <c09652430712190647p2c401294y652b68caab87d475@mail.gmail.com> <20071219151107.GE5944@lunn.ch> <c09652430712210134l31588a3fqa418b1a5507892b6@mail.gmail.com>
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Switched to using memcpy() for tftp get, which matters w/larger packet sizes.
Thanks.
It would be good if you could tweak a few things: firstly, the use of
sprintf means the CDL will need to require CYGINT_ISO_STDIO_FORMATTED_IO.
Secondly, and I realise the problem was there before as well, but I am
concerned that there are no boundary checks on overrunning the end of
'data', despite the variable length of filename (which could well originate
from user input, so it's up to us to enforce our own size limits). I think
this should be checked. Would you be able to do that?
Finally, Since tftp_client_put is nearly identical in this respect, can you
make a similar change to it? Seems strange to do one and not the other.
Thanks again.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts
Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571
Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071.
------["Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere"]------ Opinions==mine