Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 10:14:59 +0200 (CEST) From: "J. Hanne" <musl@...hanne.name> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: CMSG_LEN macro Hi, thanks for your thoughts. The NLMSG macros also already gave me similar headache some time ago. I personally find both APIs counter-intuitive because they use the term "ALIGN", when they mean "PAD", so that the *following* item is aligned. I would suggest the following patch now: Do not use CMSG_ALIGN on struct cmsghdr, because: - This has no effect on any architecture anyway, because sizeof(struct cmsghdr) == 16 on all archs - Using it contradicts with CMSG_DATA, which does NOT apply any padding after struct cmsghdr - This is consistent with the NLMSG_* macros --- diff -uNr a/include/sys/socket.h b/include/sys/socket.h --- a/include/sys/socket.h 2021-01-15 03:26:00.000000000 +0100 +++ b/include/sys/socket.h 2021-10-03 09:49:35.000000000 +0200 @@ -358,8 +358,8 @@ #define CMSG_FIRSTHDR(mhdr) ((size_t) (mhdr)->msg_controllen >= sizeof (struct cmsghdr) ? (struct cmsghdr *) (mhdr)->msg_control : (struct cmsghdr *) 0) #define CMSG_ALIGN(len) (((len) + sizeof (size_t) - 1) & (size_t) ~(sizeof (size_t) - 1)) -#define CMSG_SPACE(len) (CMSG_ALIGN (len) + CMSG_ALIGN (sizeof (struct cmsghdr))) -#define CMSG_LEN(len) (CMSG_ALIGN (sizeof (struct cmsghdr)) + (len)) +#define CMSG_SPACE(len) (CMSG_ALIGN (len) + sizeof (struct cmsghdr)) +#define CMSG_LEN(len) (sizeof (struct cmsghdr) + (len)) #define SCM_RIGHTS 0x01 #define SCM_CREDENTIALS 0x02 -- By the way, the question which led me to all this stuff is: How do I get the payload length of a received cmsg. Neither the man page nor an Internet search gave me any satisfactory answer. So my best guess was "do some arithmetic with CMSG_LEN": payloadlen = cmsghdr->cmsg_len - CMSG_LEN(0); However, when double-checking with musl source code, the CMSG_ALIGN on struct cmsghdr made me doubt my approach. Now, I will stick to it - as long as nobody else has a better idea? Regards, Johann Markus Wichmann schrieb am 05.09.2021 19:27 (GMT +02:00): > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 09:12:13AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > Anyone else have thoughts on this? > > > > Rich > > I noticed something similar about the NLMSG_* macros that allow for > padding where there can be none (in the interface). struct nlmsghdr has > alignment of 4, and the netlink message alignment is also 4, and that > can never be changed on any existing arch since it would break binary > compatibility. And for netlink, it is unlikely they would add > architecture specific alignment in future, given that today it is > arch-independent. > > I guess those are symptoms of overly general software design. The macros > must exist, but I concur with your conclusion that they can be > implemented without reference to CMSG_ALIGN. > > BTW, I just checked the implementation of the NLMSG_* macros in musl, > and they do assume the alignment of struct nlmsghdr. So for consistency, > we should probably do the same for the CMSG_* macros. > > Ciao, > Markus > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.