we can see the api is defined as blow
int getsockopt(int sockfd, int level, int optname,
void *optval, socklen_t *optlen);
Question 1:
Suppose given a level and optname, then we know the optlen, why do we need the user to provide the optlen parameter as well?
even user provide the optlen, why it is a pointer to socklen_t rather than socklen_t directly? do the implementation will change the value of optlen somehow?
Thanks
Have you looked at the Linux man page for getsockopt(2) or the POSIX specification of getsockopt()?
The optlen parameter is an in-out parameter. On input, it specifies how much space is available in the optval space, and on output, it reports how much of the space in optval was written to.
Yes, the implementation changes the value of *optlen.
For example, POSIX says:
If the size of the option value is greater than option_len, the value stored in the object pointed to by the option_value argument shall be silently truncated. Otherwise, the object pointed to by the option_len argument shall be modified to indicate the actual length of the value.
The specification uses option_len where you used optlen, and option_value where you used optval.
It is easy to understand.Because api faces many options and needs to prepare for future options.
Example:
assume "optname=1" , it will return 64bytes strings. At this time ,you need :
char optval[64];
socklen_t optlen=64;
Related
So, I'm creating a server in C which uses UDP, and I want to listen for incoming packets from many sources. Therefore, when I call ssize_t recvfrom(int, void *, size_t, int, struct sockaddr * __restrict, socklen_t * __restrict), the 5th parameter, that which contains the sender's information, may vary.
Is there a way to receive the packets without knowing each individual client's address information? And, is this possible with C's library?
Here's my code:
int file_descriptor;
char data[1024];
int bytes_recved;
sockaddr_in iDontKnow;
socklen_t addr_len = sizeof(iDontKnow);
if ((bytes_recved = recvfrom(file_descriptor, data, strlen(data), 0, (struct sockaddr*)&iDontKnow, &addr_len)) < 0) {
perror("Failed to receive data");
}
I noticed that when receiving data with Java's DatagramSocket and DatagramPacket classes, the DatagramSocket's receive function took in a parameter of type DatagramPacket. This DatagramPacket, however, only held the object in which to place the data. So, why does C's implementation of UDP receiving require that you know the sender's information?
Is there a way to receive the packets without knowing each individual client's address information?
Well, you don't need to know the sender information beforehand, anyway. Once a packet is received, the sender information (if available) will be stored into address.
From the man page,
ssize_t recvfrom(int socket, void *restrict buffer, size_t length,
int flags, struct sockaddr *restrict address,
socklen_t *restrict address_len);
[...] If the address argument is not a null pointer and the protocol provides the source address of messages, the source address of the received message shall be stored in the sockaddr structure pointed to by the address argument, and the length of this address shall be stored in the object pointed to by the address_len argument.
Regarding the why part, in case of connectionless sockets, unless you know of the sender address for a packet in a communication, you cannot reply or respond to the sender. So, it is required to know the sender info specifically in connectionless mode and there comes recvfrom() which, along with the received data, gives us the info about the sender, also.
EDIT:
In your code
recvfrom(file_descriptor, data, strlen(data), 0, (struct sockaddr*)&iDontKnow, &addr_len)
is wrong, as strlen(data) is UB, as you're trying to count the length of an uninitialized char array, which is not qualified to be a string. It invokes undefined behavior. You may want to use sizeof(data), as data is an array.
In case you're not interested in sender's info, just pass a NULL as the corresponding argument.
To add to that, for connectionless sockets (UDP), it's actually required to get the sender information. For connection oriented sockets, you have another stripped-down alternative , recv() which only takes care of receiving and storing the data.
This DatagramPacket, however, only held the object in which to place the data.
And the source address and port, and the length of the data.
So, why does C's implementation of UDP receiving require that you know the sender's information?
It doesn't. It has the option to tell you the source address and port. It's a result parameter, not an input.
You compare different functions from Java and C.
In C there is also a recv() function that does not provide any address.
The sole puprpose of recvfrom over recv is to get the sender's address.
Normally servers reply to packets that they receive. Wihout an address that is not possible.
If you do not care about the sender of your packets, just take recv.
Or to put it the other way around:
If you don't care about the sender, why did you pick the recvfrom version of recv?
I wonder what does the server server if it doesn't care about the client's addresses... But that is not related to your question.
You could do it like these,
int sockfd_recv;
struct sockaddr_in recvaddr;
bzero(&recvaddr, sizeof(recvaddr));
recvaddr.sin_family = AF_INET;
recvaddr.sin_port = htons(port_recv);
recvaddr.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY);
int ret = bind(sockfd_recv, (struct sockaddr *)&recvaddr, sizeof(recvaddr));
In socket programming, especially while dealing with Unix domain sockets of type struct sockaddr_un, some people use offsetof() to calculate the size of the sockaddr_un structure like-
struct sockaddr_un {
sa_family_t sun_family; /* AF_UNIX */
char sun_path[108]; /* pathname */
};
size = (offsetof (struct sockaddr_un, sun_path)
+ strlen (name.sun_path));
In some other places, they use
size = sizeof(struct sockaddr_un)
I understand that the first method accounts for shorter path names and the second gives a fixed max size irrespective of the actual path length.
Does it really make a difference to a function like bind which is passed this value? If not, can these 2 be used interchangeably?
offsetof takes into account any padding that the C compiler may have added after the size of the base members. However, if you define network packets using C structures that contain padding added by the C compiler, you have bigger problems! In fact I'd ensure that a test case was added which ensures that both methods return the same size, to guard against incorrect compile options changing padding rules, for example.
In the context of this question, no, it doesn't make any difference to bind.
I would say the offsetof version you posted is incorrect. It should have at least a +1 in it, as the path is defined as a null-terminated string, and that's the length that the kernel returns e.g. from getsockname().
Even with the +1, I don't see the point of using something complex over something simple. It does save a few bytes being transferred to the kernel, but bind() and friends are hardly the rate-determine steps.
I'm trying to send an encrypted message in a simple server-client chat program.
This is the send() call:
int send(int sockfd, const void *msg, int len, int flags);
Can I pass an int array as *msg?
I think you can use the send() system call. But be aware, that the len is the length of the message in bytes. So i think for an array of 5 int. You need to specify the len as 5*(sizeof(int)).
Additionally, on the receiving side, you need to interpret it accordingly.
As Naveen pointed out, a more detailed answer to your question is already present here.
Yes, you are allowed to pass an array of ints to send(). The reason you're allowed to do that is arrays are automatically converted to pointers when they are passed to functions. See this previous question.
In addition, any pointer in C is can be automatically cast to void * if necessary. Void pointers were designed to provide implicit conversion.
In C socket programming the accept() declaration looks like:
int accept(int sockfd, struct sockaddr *addr, socklen_t *addrlen);
I can understand the uses of sockfd, struct sockaddr *addr.
But why we have to pass the address of the length of the socket, it could have been socklen_t. Because if the accept() function needs the length then it can get it by socklen_t. Why the protype of the function is declared in such that way?
So what is the reason behind using socklen_t * type?
In code that's agnostic to the address/protocol family of the socket it's accepting from, it may be using a generic sockaddr_storage structure to hold the result. The initial value of the pointed-to socklen_t is the size of this storage; the value after accept returns is the actual size of the resulting peer address. Also, some address/protocol families like AF_UNIX have variable length addresses, so even if you know the type you may not know the size.
why addrlen is needed
accept designed to deal with lots of protocal family, their addr struct maybe different length.
The argument addr is a pointer to a sockaddr structure. This structure is filled in with
the address of the peer socket, as known to the communications layer. The exact format
of the address returned addr is determined by the socket's address family (see socket(2)
and the respective protocol man pages). When addr is NULL, nothing is filled in; in this
case, addrlen is not used, and should also be NULL.
why pointer
The addrlen argument is a value-result argument: the caller must initialize it to contain
the size (in bytes) of the structure pointed to by addr; on return it will contain the
actual size of the peer address.
why socklen_t
The socklen_t type
The third argument of accept() was originally declared as an int * (and is that under
libc4 and libc5 and on many other systems like 4.x BSD, SunOS 4, SGI); a POSIX.1g draft
standard wanted to change it into a size_t *, and that is what it is for SunOS 5. Later
POSIX drafts have socklen_t *, and so do the Single UNIX Specification and glibc2. Quot‐
ing Linus Torvalds:
"Any sane library must have "socklen_t" be the same size as int. Anything else
breaks any BSD socket layer stuff. POSIX initially did make it a size_t, and I (and
hopefully others, but obviously not too many) complained to them very loudly indeed.
Making it a size_t is completely broken, exactly because size_t very seldom is the same
size as "int" on 64-bit architectures, for example. And it has to be the same size as
"int" because that's what the BSD socket interface is. Anyway, the POSIX people eventu‐
ally got a clue, and created "socklen_t". They shouldn't have touched it in the first
place, but once they did they felt it had to have a named type for some unfathomable rea‐
son (probably somebody didn't like losing face over having done the original stupid
thing, so they silently just renamed their blunder)."
ref: man accept, man socket
I'm using recvfrom in my program to get DGRAM data from a server I specify in src_addr. However, I'm not sure why I need to initialize and pass in addrlen.
I read the man page and I didn't really understand what it's getting at.
If src_addr is not NULL, and the underlying protocol provides the source address, this source address is filled in. When
src_addr is NULL, nothing is filled in; in this case, addrlen is not
used, and should also be NULL. The argument addrlen is a value-result argument, which the caller should initialize before the
call to the size of the buffer associated with src_addr, and
modified on return to indicate the actual size of the source address. The returned address is truncated if the buffer provided is too small;
in this case, addrlen will return a value greater than was supplied to the call.
I'm guessing that it's got something to do with src_addr being ipv4 or ipv6. Is this correct?
Thanks!
Maybe there is a missinterpretation from your side. Talking about:
ssize_t recvfrom(int sockfd, void *buf, size_t len, int flags,
struct sockaddr *src_addr, socklen_t *addrlen);
src_addr is not used to hand in the adress that you would like to listen to, but rather a storage location provided by you to get the actual source address handed out.
Thus if you set src_addr to NULL because youre not interested in the address at all, you don't have to care about addrlen as it won't get used anyway.
If on the other hand you want to be informed about the source address, you not only have to provide a storage location, but also tell how big the storage location you provided is.
Thats why you should initialize *addr_len to the buffer size you allocated.
After your call the value pointed to by addrlen will inform you about how much (if any) of the space you allocated to store the source address got actually filled with data.
About sizes
The whole hassle with struct sockaddr and passing sizes back and forth has to do with the fact that even thoug they're most heavily used in networking sockets were intended to be much more general concept.
Think about unix domain sockets as an an example as they are implemented via the filesystem they require an adressing scheme totaly different from that known from IP based networking. The type of sockaddr used here is:
struct sockaddr_un {
sa_family_t sun_family; /* AF_UNIX */
sun_path[UNIX_PATH_MAX]; /* pathname */
};
Compare this to the struct used in IP based networking:
struct sockaddr_in {
sa_family_t sin_family; /* address family: AF_INET */
in_port_t sin_port; /* port in network byte order */
struct in_addr sin_addr; /* internet address */
};
it should be clear both don't have too much in common.
sockets were designed to be able to fit both cases.
ssize_t recvfrom(int socket, void *buffer, size_t length, int flags,
struct sockaddr *address, socklen_t *address_len);`
The address_len argument specifies the length of the address structure i.e. the number of bytes to use from the start address indicated at address(start address of memory location + number of bytes from the start address that hold the value)
The structure is defined in /usr/include/bits/socket.h
/* Structure describing a generic socket address. */
struct sockaddr
{
__SOCKADDR_COMMON (sa_); /* Common data: address family and length. */
char sa_data[14]; /* Address data. */
};
Thus the sa_data field holds the address data (start address of the data) whose length is indicated by the address_len argument.
... whenever a function says it takes a struct sockaddr* you can cast your
struct sockaddr_in*, struct sockaddr_in6*, or struct sockadd_storage*
to that type with ease and safety.
Therefore, as indicated in the man page and #WhozCraig in the comment to your question, this field is updated with the actual size when the method returns.
More information
recvfrom
Beej's Guide to Network Programming - struct sockaddr and pals