On 1/19/23 22:00, Bastien Roucariès wrote:
[...]
>>
>
> I do not believe it is broken by design. It should be used with care and warning.
>
> BTW if we go to the anonymous union way could we add at the end a _null_reserved_field. It will help for unix socket and the infamous sun_path could not end with null...
> May be it is too late from an ABI point of view, but for me the posix contract from an ABI point of view is that I said in the note sockaddr_storage could grow but not be reduced.
Yes, many types have seen such additions at the end of it over time. In the
Linux man-pages, I try to document all structures as "having at least these
members", but may grow over time.
>
> struct sockaddr_storage {
> union {
> sa_family_t ss_family;
> struct sockaddr sa;
> struct sockaddr_in sin;
> struct sockaddr_in6 sin6;
> struct sockaddr_un sun;
> };
> char __reserved_null;
Such a field would make sense. In fact, I believe the Linux internal
implementation of _un must have something similar, since it ensures
null-termination even if the user passes a non-terminated string, IIRC.
> };
>
[...]
>> This is compatible:
>>
>> - It had at least the `ss_family` field. It's still there, at the same binary
>> location.
>> - It has a size at least as large as any other sockaddr_* structure, and a
>> suitable alignment.
>> - Old code still works with it just fine.
>> - New code will be able to avoid UB, and all casts, just by accessing the right
>> structure element.
>> - It's trivial to test at configure time if the implementation provides this
>> new definition of the structure.
>
> I agree I could even add a macro for autoconf-archive (I am upstream) and post a patch for gnulib.
Nice; since it's backwards compatible, I'll (probably) suggest a patch for glibc.
>
>>>>
>>>>> +.I sockaddr_storage
>>>>> +structure is large enough to hold any of the other
>>>>> +.I sockaddr_*
>>>>> +variants and always well aligned. On return, it should be cast to the correct
>>>>> +.I sockaddr_*
>>>>
>>>> The fact that it is correctly aligned, and a cast will work most of the time,
>>>> isn't enough for strict aliasing rules. The compiler is free to assume things,
>>>> just by the fact that it's a different type.
>>>
>>> Ok any idea for writing this kind of stuff
>>
>> I'm thinking about writing something to several pages; will keep you all updated
>> on important changes to the pages.
>
> Please exchange with me... It is really a pitffall for my student, so I could help here.
Sure. Will do.
Cheers,
Alex
>
> Bastien
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
--