From owner-freebsd-net Wed Jul 12 11:42: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB92437BF69 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:42:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id DAA25458 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:42:02 +0900 (JST) To: net@freebsd.org Subject: change to struct route X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:42:01 +0900 Message-ID: <25456.963427321@coconut.itojun.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org i'll want to do it for freebsd too (maybe post-4.1 item). are you guys happy with this? the reason why we do not change the type for ro_dst (into sockaddr_storage) is that, if we do so, it will add too many typecasts in existing code. itojun ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id DAA23920 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:16:19 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 21594 invoked by uid 1176); 12 Jul 2000 18:16:06 -0000 Delivered-To: itojun@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 21411 invoked by uid 605); 12 Jul 2000 18:16:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 21404 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2000 18:16:02 -0000 Received: from dhcp0.itojun.org (HELO lychee.itojun.org) (210.160.95.106) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 12 Jul 2000 18:16:02 -0000 Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by itojun.org (8.10.0/3.7W) with ESMTP id e6CIEkH07639; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:14:46 +0900 (JST) To: tech-net@netbsd.org cc: core@kame.net Subject: struct route X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:14:46 +0900 Message-ID: <7637.963425686@localhost> Sender: tech-net-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Delivered-To: tech-net@netbsd.org X-Filter: mailagent [version 3.0 PL68] for itojun@itojun.org sys/net/route.h has struct route, which is like this: struct route { struct rtentry *ro_rt; struct sockaddr ro_dst; }; This cannot hold sockaddr_iso or sockaddr_in6 (as sizeof(sockaddr) < sizeof(sockaddr_in6)), so there are local declarations for struct route-lookalike, in netiso (sys/netiso/iso_pcb.h) and netinet6 (sys/netinet6/in6.h). the approach has three issues, I believe: (1) maintenance nightmare. (2) offsetof(struct route, ro_dst) may not be equal to offsetof(struct route_in6, ro_dst), as we are unsure about struct packing rule by the compiler (3) if we mistakenly make a struct route_in6 * point to struct route region, we will easily make a overrun. so, we'd like to change it as follows: struct route { struct rtentry *ro_rt; struct sockaddr ro_dst; char padding[sizeof(struct sockaddr_storage) - sizeof(struct sockaddr)]; }; and nuke special route-like structure in netiso/netinet6. the above change should not raise type issue against existing code (like sys/netinet), as we do not change the type of ro_dst. since struct route is kernel-only structure, the change should not raise binary compatibility problem against the userland. is it okay for you guys? we are now testing this in kame tree and is working fine. itojun ------- End of Forwarded Message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message