Re: struct sockaddr_storage

[Alex Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

Hi,

After reading more about transparent_unit, here's my idea of a fix for 
the API.  old_api() is an example for the libc functions that accept a 
`struct sockaddr *`, and user_code() is an example for user code 
functions that handle sockaddr structures.  The interface would be the 
same as it is currently, but the implementation inside libc would change 
to use a union.  In user code, uses of sockaddr_storage would be made 
safe with these changes, I believe, and new code would be simpler, since 
it wouldn't need casts.



void old_api(union my_sockaddr_ptr *sa);


struct sockaddr_storage {
	union {
		struct {
			sa_family_t  ss_family;
		};
		struct sockaddr_in   sin;
		struct sockaddr_in6  sin6;
		struct sockaddr_un   sun;
		// ...
	};
};


union [[gnu::transparent_union]] sockaddr_ptr {
	struct sockaddr_storage  *ss;
	struct sockaddr          *sa;
};


void old_api(struct sockaddr_storage *ss)
{
	// Here libc uses the union, so it doesn't invoke UB.
	ss->sun.sa_family = AF_UNIX;
	//...
}


void user_code(void)
{
	struct my_sockaddr_storage  ss;  // object definition

	// ...

	old_api(&ss);  // The transparent_union allows no casts.

	switch (ss.ss_family) {
		// This is safe too.
		// thanks to common initial sequence within a union.
	}
}


This would in fact deprecate plain `struct sockaddr`, as Bastien suggested.


Cheers,

Alex


-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]