| Message ID | 1221757668.23007.12.camel@ns-test |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Headers | show |
From: Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage@sophia.inria.fr> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:07:48 -0700 > The attached patch hopefully clarifies the intent of the unix_bind > function in net/unix/af_unix.c. I've rejected this patch over and over in the past, and nothing has happened to change my mind since then. ---------------------------------------- Subject: Re: [PATCH,TRIVIAL] AF_UNIX, accept() and addrlen From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> To: samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, mtk.manpages@googlemail.com, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:54:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:44:45 +0100 > AF_UNIX: make unix_getname use sizeof(sunaddr->sun_family) instead of > sizeof(short). > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> This is just syntactic masterbation, sa_family_t is typedef'd "unsigned short". No system on planet earth providing the BSD sockets API uses anything other than uint16_t or unsigned short for this. Sorry, I'm not applying this.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:36 -0700, David Miller wrote: > This is just syntactic masterbation, sa_family_t is typedef'd > "unsigned short". Would you take a patch to remove sa_family_t from the kernel code and headers ? Otherwise, I suspect that you can understand that it is a bit hard for others to figure out where it is appropriate to use it and where it is not. regards, Mathieu
From: Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage@sophia.inria.fr> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:53:40 -0700 > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:36 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > This is just syntactic masterbation, sa_family_t is typedef'd > > "unsigned short". > > Would you take a patch to remove sa_family_t from the kernel code and > headers ? Otherwise, I suspect that you can understand that it is a bit > hard for others to figure out where it is appropriate to use it and > where it is not. No, that would break older userspace.
Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage@sophia.inria.fr> writes: > The attached patch hopefully clarifies the intent of the unix_bind > function in net/unix/af_unix.c. That 'feature' (the ability to delegate > the endpoint allocation to the kernel with bind by sending a > sockaddr_un.sun_family = AF_UNIX rather than have to wait until the > autobind is triggered by a later call to send) would be nice to document > in the unix '7' manpage but, I have no idea where these are maintained. They are maintained by the manpage maintainer mtk.manpages@googlemail.com -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c index 015606b..efa725e 100644 --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c @@ -777,7 +777,7 @@ static int unix_bind(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *uaddr, int addr_len) if (sunaddr->sun_family != AF_UNIX) goto out; - if (addr_len==sizeof(short)) { + if (addr_len==sizeof(sa_family_t)) { err = unix_autobind(sock); goto out; }