On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:58:02PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:

 > Ok, explain to me why we're not fixing the problem of the mbuf being
 > badly initialised here and instead passing a 'bad mbuf' to bpf_mtap().
 > 
 > If M_PKTHDR is set, then the contents of m_pkthdr are *meant* to be
 > valid or at least that's what everyone _tells me_ (hi Jason!).

I agree with darren here... if M_PKTHDR is set, then m_pkthdr MUST
be valid.

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>