Re: Bug, well not really but could be?

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Daryl Tester
<[email protected]> wrote:
> (* Reply to dev null'd *)
>
> Paul Procacci wrote:
>
>> I have the following definition of accept:
>>
>> int accept(int s, struct sockaddr * restrict addr, socklen_t * restrict
>> addrlen);
>
> Note that the 3rd argument wasn't always socklen_t; it initially was int
> (pre-Posix something).

Some relevant reading material:

http://portabilityblog.com/blog/archives/7-socklen_t-confusion.html

I switched to socklen_t in my djbdns fork (zinq-djbdns) to avoid the
compiler warnings:

http://zinq.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/zinq?view=rev&revision=55

> Provided that the sizeof (struct sockaddr_in) remains less than 2GB in
> size (which I hope so for the immediate future) there shouldn't be an
> issue (too early in the morning for me to be doing signed arithmetic).

In a sane world, socklen_t would always be big enough to contain the result of:

sizeof sa

where sa is a sockaddr_in

The same goes if using an int instead of socklen_t.

> Don't make the folly of applying standards of today to software that
> was written nearly 10 years (or probably greater) ago.

Lots of Dan's stuff (most? all?) predates the latest Posix specs.  I
believe he also explicitly targetted non-Posix platforms.

I consider compiler warnings to be broken windows.  I've gotten some
of my djbware forks to compile without any on recent vintages of Linux
and GCC (though I feel I had to cheat a bit to do so).  I think I've
got a few left in zinq-djbdns, though...