Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:02:34 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@iitbombay.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Question about netinet6/in6.h Message-ID: <E05F30FF-3FAD-4AB3-BA0F-3F1DB594A4D2@iitbombay.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqEf-TniYhp0Cyv_DnFeKcHKvxeRBotyLYgzN0Jcw5BcQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfrDTktpyW9Ad=3-K9qnVYmY_wCnrmyizvgwJktVfHfV3Q@mail.gmail.com> <229EB3F8-FB68-461C-BF1F-3B2846510EBA@karels.net> <AA706B2F-1C77-47B7-915E-6574E1F3654C@karels.net> <CANCZdfrtxsGKKn3bzaWRDhYphYb0DuZ7VTOWeTbR_8X980u_1A@mail.gmail.com> <4AF50212-9141-44FF-937F-A06AF8B15121@karels.net> <54E63C68-2713-4247-A57C-D3AA9C571327@iitbombay.org> <CANCZdfqEf-TniYhp0Cyv_DnFeKcHKvxeRBotyLYgzN0Jcw5BcQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 26, 2024, at 8:41=E2=80=AFPM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 9:33=E2=80=AFPM Bakul Shah <bakul@iitbombay.org> =
wrote:
>=20
>=20
> > On Apr 26, 2024, at 5:02=E2=80=AFPM, Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> =
wrote:
> >=20
> > On 26 Apr 2024, at 18:06, Warner Losh wrote:
> >=20
> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:21=E2=80=AFPM Mike Karels =
<mike@karels.net> wrote:
> >>=20
> >>> On 26 Apr 2024, at 15:49, Mike Karels wrote:
> >>>=20
> >>>> On 26 Apr 2024, at 15:01, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>>>=20
> >>>>> This has to be a FAQ
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> I'm porting a program from Linux, I often see an error like:
> >>>>> ./test/mock-ifaddrs.c:95:19: error: no member named 's6_addr32' =
in
> >>> 'struct
> >>>>> in6_addr'
> >>>>> 95 | ipv6->sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3] =3D 0;
> >>>>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
> >>>>> but yet, we kinda define them, but only for the kernel and boot =
loader:
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * IPv6 address
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> struct in6_addr {
> >>>>> union {
> >>>>> uint8_t __u6_addr8[16];
> >>>>> uint16_t __u6_addr16[8];
> >>>>> uint32_t __u6_addr32[4];
> >>>>> } __u6_addr; /* 128-bit IP6 address */
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> #define s6_addr __u6_addr.__u6_addr8
> >>>>> #if defined(_KERNEL) || defined(_STANDALONE) /* XXX nonstandard =
*/
> >>>>> #define s6_addr8 __u6_addr.__u6_addr8
> >>>>> #define s6_addr16 __u6_addr.__u6_addr16
> >>>>> #define s6_addr32 __u6_addr.__u6_addr32
> >>>>> #endif
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> I'm wondering if anybody why it's like that? git blame suggests =
we
> >>> imported
> >>>>> that from kame, with
> >>>>> only tweaks by people that are now deceased*.*
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> Why not just expose them?
> >>>>=20
> >>>> Looks like only s6_addr is specified in the RFCs (2553 and 3493). =
Oddly,
> >>>> though, the RFCs give an example implementation using that union =
with
> >>>> different element names (like _S6_u8), and show the one #define.
> >>>> Similarly, POSIX specifies only s6_addr, but it allows other =
members
> >>>> of the structure, so I don't see a problem with exposing them all =
even
> >>>> in a POSIX environment.
> >>>>=20
> >>>> I would have no objection to exposing all four definitions, =
especially
> >>>> if Linux apps use them.
> >>>=20
> >>> I put the change, along with an explanatory comment, in
> >>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D44979. Comments welcome.
> >>>=20
> >>=20
> >> Thanks! I was testing a similar change, but I like yours better... =
though
> >> maybe
> >> we should just make it visible when __BSD_VISIBLE is true.... I'll =
have to
> >> look
> >> closely at what Linux does here... I think they have it always =
visible, or
> >> at least
> >> musl does that (glibc is harder to track down due to the many =
layers of
> >> indirection).
> >=20
> > I thought briefly about __BSD_VISIBLE, but wasn't sure it was =
necessary.
> > Let me know what you find out. I think it should work either way; =
in.h
> > includes cdefs.h, so it's guaranteed to have been included.
>=20
> If the -ms-extensions option is used with gcc or clang, this ugliness =
can
> go away as you can have nested anonymous unions or -structs and their =
fields
> can be referenced as if they're directly in the parent struct/union.
>=20
> [IIRC this was present in Plan9 C from very early on. Also in C11 or =
later]
>=20
> True. In fact c11 and newer doesn't need anything on the command line =
here. If it were only in the kernel then I'd chamge it like thay while I =
was here... but lots of code in ports will specify c99 + POSIX 2001 and =
to compile there your only hope is this construct....
Such defines were typically within #if defined(KERNEL) .. #endif
so non-kld ports shouldn't be referring to them, right?!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E05F30FF-3FAD-4AB3-BA0F-3F1DB594A4D2>