On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 13:42:25 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:Uh, I haven't heard of either of those. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibsonOn Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 09:25:06PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:Hmm, look at the commit message for a48c5c2abf8a ("treewide: Disable gcc strict aliasing rules as needed, drop workarounds"): that didn't help with the checksum functions, because yes, at some point I had char *, but then I used those as different types. I guess struct in_addr / struct in6_addr as we have in sock_l4() might be equivalent to that.On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 01:31:33 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:Hrm... possibly. The fact that the addr variable in conf_ports() is a char array, not a struct in*_addr might save us.This takes a struct in_addr * (i.e. an IPv4 address), although it's explicitly supposed to handle IPv6 as well. Both its caller and sock_l4() which it calls use a void * for the address, which can be either an in_addr or an in6_addr. We get away with this, because we don't do anything with the pointer other than transfer it from the caller to sock_l4(), but it's misleading. And quite possibly technically UB, because C is like that. Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> --- tcp.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c index f506cfd..bda95b2 100644 --- a/tcp.c +++ b/tcp.c @@ -2905,7 +2905,7 @@ void tcp_sock_handler(struct ctx *c, union epoll_ref ref, uint32_t events) * Return: fd for the new listening socket, negative error code on failure */ static int tcp_sock_init_af(const struct ctx *c, int af, in_port_t port, - const struct in_addr *addr, const char *ifname) + const void *addr, const char *ifname)This is obviously correct. However, after a lot of thinking: (gcc) optimisations based on Type-Based Alias Analysis, which we don't disable on this path, could, now, happily defer filling 'addr' with inet_pton() in conf_ports() to a point *after* the tcp_sock_init() call.I think replacing it with a union of an in_addr and in6_addr would also be ok.That should work, yes, and that's what I originally wanted to suggest, before remembering about union inany_addr... but that doesn't fit, see below.Ouch, right, they aren't (again... sarcastically speaking).Without this patch, at least 32 bits must be updated before the call.I'm not sure that's correct. If the compiler is allowed to assume that a char[] and a void * aren't aliased (even if they clearly are), then I'd expect it to also be allowed to assume that a char[] and a struct in_addr * aren't aliased.I really meant *a pointer* to union inany_addr, that is:It might sound like a joke because... it actually is. But look at what we had to do for the functions in checksum.c. We pass const void *buf, and anything that buf points to can be updated (with TBAA) after the call. I don't see any conceptual difference between this case and those functions. Anyway, that won't reasonably happen here, and in any case this would have been broken for IPv6, so I'll go ahead and apply this. But, eventually, I think we should switch all these usages to union inany_addr *.So, we may be able to use union inany_addr in some places, but that's not the same thing as this: inany_addr carries IPv4 addresses as mapped IPv6 addresses, it's not switched on a separate af parameter.We could, of course, define a new type as a simple union of in_addr and in6_addr....abusing it instead of using a separate union. On the other hand, given where 'a4' is in there, it's not necessarily the same for (strict) aliasing considerations. Is "union in10_addr" fashionable enough? We could use A [16], but it's inconvenient to type, and difficult to pronounce.