On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 12:43:06 +0200
Paolo Abeni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/20/25 11:26 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Add flexible sockaddr structure to support addresses longer than the
> > traditional 14-byte struct sockaddr::sa_data limitation without
> > requiring the full 128-byte sa_data of struct sockaddr_storage. This
> > allows the network APIs to pass around a pointer to an object that
> > isn't lying to the compiler about how big it is, but must be accompanied
> > by its actual size as an additional parameter.
> >
> > It's possible we may way to migrate to including the size with the
> > struct in the future, e.g.:
> >
> > struct sockaddr_unspec {
> > u16 sa_data_len;
> > u16 sa_family;
> > u8 sa_data[] __counted_by(sa_data_len);
> > };
>
> Side note: sockaddr_unspec is possibly not the optimal name, as
> AF_UNSPEC has a specific meaning/semantic.
>
> Name-wise, I think 'sockaddr_sized' would be better,
Or even sockaddr_unsized ?
> but I agree with David the struct may cause unaligned access problems.
It probably also wants the 'sized_by' attribute rather than 'counted_by'.
So wherever the length is saved it is the length the user supplied
for the structure (or the sizeof the protocol-specific one).
David
>
> /P
>
>
