On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:13:03AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Phil Sutter
> > Sent: 03 August 2016 22:23
> > This is required to correctly interpret INET_DIAG_INFO messages exported
> > by sctp_diag module.
> ...
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sctp.h b/include/linux/sctp.h
> > index de1f64318fc4e..fcb4c36461732 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sctp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sctp.h
> > @@ -705,70 +705,6 @@ typedef struct sctp_auth_chunk {
> > sctp_authhdr_t auth_hdr;
> > } __packed sctp_auth_chunk_t;
> >
> > -struct sctp_info {
> > - __u32 sctpi_tag;
> ...
> > - __u32 __reserved3;
> > -};
> > -
> > struct sctp_infox {
> > struct sctp_info *sctpinfo;
> > struct sctp_association *asoc;
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h b/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h
> > index d304f4c9792c4..a406adcc0793e 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sctp.h
> > @@ -944,4 +944,68 @@ struct sctp_default_prinfo {
> > __u16 pr_policy;
> > };
> >
> > +struct sctp_info {
> > + __u32 sctpi_tag;
>
> Should these be uint32_t (etc) for userspace?
Grepping through include/uapi in my clone of net-next, I see 271 results
for uint32_t but 4595 ones for __u32. So while not necessarily correct,
it seems to be the far more popular choice. Do you see any benefit in
using the uint*_t typedefs instead?
> > + __u32 sctpi_state;
> ...
> > + __u16 __reserved1;
>
> Is it worth adding some extra pad here in case anything extra needs
> to be added to this set of data?
>
> ...
> > + __u32 __reserved3;
>
> Think I'd definitely add a few words of pad here.
> Or at least make absolutely sure the interface passes the buffer length and
> allows for kernels that report different length buffers.
I merely copy and pasted the struct from include/linux/sctp.h without
thinking about it's layout. Xin, what are your thoughts about this?
Thanks, Phil
