Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:18:48AM -0400, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> 
> After thinking about it for a couple of days I don't see how changing the
> size of sockaddr_storage has any benefit.  As you point out doing so would
> require even more change for ABI compatibility.
> 
> The only gain appears to be avoiding definition of a new structure that
> would be used only in the kernel.  Maybe there's more?

I don't agree.  Ask yourself what sockaddr_storage is _for_ if it's not
meant to be able to contain an arbitrary address for an arbitrary
protocol.  It confounds expectations that we have a protocol whose addresses
won't fit.  Creating another structure with the same purpose but a different
name, and papering over that that's what's been done by hiding the new one
from userspace, is not the right answer.  Or so it seems to me.

In fairness I should note that at a former employer I wrote a great deal
of code that passes sockaddr_storage structures around in userspace.  So
there are application maintainers, like them, who would experience a flag
day.  But I still think we should do the right thing rather than make a
mess.

Thor