From: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@owlfolio.org>,
GNU libc development <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: "Alejandro Colomar" <alx@kernel.org>,
'linux-man' <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
"Bastien Roucariès" <rouca@debian.org>,
"Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com>,
"Stefan Puiu" <stefan.puiu@gmail.com>,
"Igor Sysoev" <igor@sysoev.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] socket: Implement sockaddr_storage with an anonymous union
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 04:17:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0eaedb18-54df-9c2d-49ab-397fd6b4f63a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d3a8505-1ec1-0e4c-299a-1b56e3525410@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5179 bytes --]
Hi Zack,
On 1/21/23 03:38, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Zack,
>
> On 1/20/23 20:25, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> [CC += GCC] // pun not intended :P
>>
>> Hi Zack,
>>
>> On 1/20/23 19:04, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, at 8:40 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>>> The historical design of `sockaddr_storage` makes it impossible to use
>>>> without breaking strict aliasing rules. Not only this type is unusable,
>>>> but even the use of other `sockaddr_*` structures directly (when the
>>>> programmer only cares about a single address family) is also incorrect,
>>>> since at some point the structure will be accessed as a `sockaddr`, and
>>>> that breaks strict aliasing rules too.
>>>>
>>>> So, the only way for a programmer to not invoke Undefined Behavior is to
>>>> declare a union that includes `sockaddr` and any `sockaddr_*` structures
>>>> that are of interest, which allows later accessing as either the correct
>>>> structure or plain `sockaddr` for the sa_family.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> struct new_sockaddr_storage nss;
>>>>
>>>> // ... (initialize oss and nss)
>>>>
>>>> inet_sockaddr2str(&nss.sa); // correct (and has no casts)
>>>
>>> I think we need to move slowly here and be _sure_ that any proposed change
>>> does in fact reduce the amount of UB.
>>
>> Sure, I'm just sending the patch to polish the idea around some concrete code.
>> While I checked that it compiles, I didn't add any tests about it or anything,
>> to see that it's usable (and Joseph's email showed me that it's far from being
>> finished). I expect that this'll take some time.
>>
>>
>>> This construct, in particular, might
>>> not actually be correct in practice: see https://godbolt.org/z/rn51cracn for
>>> a case where, if I'm reading it right, the compiler assumes that a write
>>> through a `struct fancy *` cannot alter the values accessible through a
>>> `struct simple *` even though both pointers point into the same union.
>>> (Test case provided by <https://stackoverflow.com/users/363751/supercat>;
>>
>
> [...]
>
> I was wrong in my guess; the correct output is 3/3; I think I had read it the
> other way around. So yes, I believe it's doing what you just wrote there, but
> can't understand why.
>
> I reduced @supercat's example to a smaller reproducer program (I couldn't
> minimize it any more than this; any further simplification removes the incorrect
> behavior):
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> struct a { int y[1];};
> struct b { int y[1];};
> union u { struct a a; struct b b; };
>
>
> int read_a(struct a *a)
> {
> return a->y[0];
> }
>
> void write_b(struct b *b, int j)
> {
> b->y[j] = 2;
> }
>
> int use_union(union u *u, int j)
> {
> if (u->a.y[0] == 0)
> write_b(&u->b, j);
> //write_b((struct b *)u, j); // this has the same issue
> return read_a(&u->a);
> return read_a((struct a *)u); // this has the same issue
> }
>
> int (*volatile vtest)(union u *u, int j) = use_union;
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int r1, r2;
> union u u;
> struct b b = {0};
>
> u.b = b;
> r1 = vtest(&u, 0);
> r2 = u.a.y[0];
>
> printf("%d/%d\n", r1, r2);
> }
Ahh, indeed it seems to be UB. It's in the same 6.5.2.3/6: there's a
requirement that the information about the union is kept in the function in
which it's accessed.
The standard presents an example, which is a bit ambiguous:
The following is not a valid fragment (because the union type is not
visible within function f):
struct t1 { int m; };
struct t2 { int m; };
int f(struct t1 *p1, struct t2 *p2)
{
if (p1->m < 0)
p2->m = -p2->m;
return p1->m;
}
int g()
{
union {
struct t1 s1;
struct t2 s2;
} u;
/* ... */
return f(&u.s1, &u.s2);
}
I don't know what's the intention if the union type was global but the variable
`u` was still not seen by f(). But it seems GCC's interpretation is UB,
according to the test we just saw.
The solution that I can see for that is making sockaddr also be a union. That
way, the union is kept across all calls (since they all use sockaddr).
struct sockaddr {
union {
struct {
sa_family_t sa_family;
char sa_data[14]; // why 14?
}
struct sockaddr_in sin;
struct sockaddr_in6 sin6;
struct sockaddr_un sun;
};
};
struct sockaddr_storage {
union {
sa_family_t ss_family;
struct sockaddr sa;
};
};
With this, sockaddr_storage becomes useless, but still usable. New code, could
just use sockaddr and use the internal union members as necessary. Union info
is kept across all function boundaries.
Cheers,
Alex
--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-21 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20230120134043.10247-1-alx@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <d77b529d-e54d-4919-87a4-d90fd816ba8b@app.fastmail.com>
2023-01-20 19:25 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-01-21 2:38 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-01-21 3:17 ` Alejandro Colomar [this message]
2023-01-21 13:30 ` Bastien Roucariès
2023-01-21 14:30 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-01-22 14:12 ` Bastien Roucariès
[not found] ` <5187043.CeDsVVrsAm@portable-bastien>
2023-01-20 20:38 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-01-20 20:46 ` Bastien Roucariès
2023-01-20 20:51 ` Alejandro Colomar
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0eaedb18-54df-9c2d-49ab-397fd6b4f63a@gmail.com \
--to=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=alx@kernel.org \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=igor@sysoev.ru \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rouca@debian.org \
--cc=stefan.puiu@gmail.com \
--cc=zack@owlfolio.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).