archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <>
To: "Cufi, Carles" <>
Cc: "" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"Lubos, Robert" <>,
	"Bursztyka, Tomasz" <>,
Subject: Re: Non-packed structures in IP headers
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2021 08:56:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Carles Cufi's message of "Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:30:34 +0000")

* Carles Cufi:

>> * Carles Cufi:
>> > I was looking through the structures for IPv{4,6} packet headers and
>> > noticed that several of those that seem to be used to parse a packet
>> > directly from the wire are not declared as packed. This surprised me
>> > because, although I did find that provisions are made so that the
>> > alignment of the structure, it is still technically possible for the
>> > compiler to inject padding bytes inside those structures, since AFAIK
>> > the C standard makes no guarantees about padding unless it's
>> > instructed to pack the structure.
>> The C standards do not make such guarantees, but the platform ABI
>> standards describe struct layout and ensure that there is no padding.
>> Linux relies on that not just for networking, but also for the userspace
>> ABI, support for separately compiled kernel modules, and in other places.
> That makes sense, but aren't ABI standards different for every
> architecture? For example, I checked the Arm AAPCS[1] and it states:
> "The size of an aggregate shall be the smallest multiple of its
> alignment that is sufficient to hold all of its members."
> Which, unless I am reading this wrong, means that the compiler would
> indeed insert padding if the size of the IP headers structs was not
> a multiple of 4. In this particular case, the struct sizes for the
> IP headers are 20 and 40 bytes respectively, so there will be no
> padding inserted. But I only checked a single architecture's ABI (or
> Procedure Call Standard) documentation, is this true for all archs?

For structure layout in memory, there is a large overlap between ABIs.
There is divergence around long long (which is easily avoided by
adding padding manually), and potentially bit fileds (but I haven't
looked at that).

Things only get weird for pass-by-value structs and unions and return

      reply	other threads:[~2021-10-09  7:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
2021-10-01 20:10 ` Non-packed structures in IP headers Florian Weimer
2021-10-02 15:54   ` David Laight
2021-10-04 10:41     ` Cufi, Carles
2021-10-04 12:18       ` David Laight
2021-10-04 10:30   ` Cufi, Carles
2021-10-09  6:56     ` Florian Weimer [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).