Re: Cannot bind an AF_UNIX socket with large filenames

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk writes:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> (Always worth CCing me as well as the list, if you want my attention
>> on a bug report.)
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks like the kernel -- at least 2.6.27.5 -- rejects with EINVAL a
>>> bind() of an AF_UNIX socket whose given size exceeds sizeof(struct
>>> sockaddr_un).
>>>
>>> Even if I make arrangements for a larger structure to accomodate a path
>>> that
>>> exceeds sockaddr_un's 107 bytes + \0, and I specify the actual size of
>>> the
>>> structure, bind() fails for me.
>>>
>>> I don't have the details, but I'm pretty sure other unixes accept domain
>>> sockets with larger filenames.
>>
>> Are you sure of that?  Offhand, I don't know of such implementations,
>> but it's been a while since I tested this.  Which systems have you
>> seen this on?
>
> Well, by process of elimination it has to be either Solaris or AIX, since
> those are the only ones I've worked with, in the last couple of decades.
> However, I don't remember which specific versions.

AIX is a system where I don't know the details.

>>> There, the sockaddr_un structure exists for
>>> historical reasons, and you can pretty much roll your own.
>>>
>>> This is perhaps worth mentioning in the description of EINVAL in unix(7).
>>
>> I'm not (yet) convinced.
>
> Well, various pathnames on various distros are getting longer, as times go
> by. That's how this one came up on my radar screen.
>
> It might be interesting to track down where the magical 108 byte limitation
> came from, but I don't really know where to look.

It's historical -- it's what was used on some of the early BSD sockets
implementations.

Cheers,

Michael

> Presuming four bytes for
> the address family, that leaves the total structure of 112 bytes. Can't
> think of a reason to use precisely that size, nothing more, and nothing
> less.
>



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git
man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html
Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Documentation]     [Netdev]     [Linux Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux