[asterisk-dev] (unreported) uninitialized: struct ast_sockaddr

[Matthew Jordan]

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Alexander Traud
<pabstraud at compuserve.com> wrote:
>>> B) Change my patch not to use a char* but char[128].
>> Your easiest option with less chance of regression elsewhere would be this.
>
> Yes. Anyway: Is the Asterisk team interested in a patch at least for the 5
> affected files? These are 54 changes. I am not sure if the path via an issue
> (Jira) and a commit (Gerrit) is welcome for something like this.
>
> Furthermore, again there are several options:
>   I) in those 5 files, report only those 54 changes which I need; or
>  II) in those 5 files, correct *all* struct inits
> The latter is interesting, because there are memsets(.) which get
> unnecessary then. This created an additional option/question:
> III) shall I remove all - then duplicate - struct inits as well?
>
> Or shall I stop wasting anyone's time and go for option B, a char[128]?

I wouldn't say you're wasting anyone's time. It's a good question.

What you're proposing is a change to the semantics of ast_sockaddr in
order to accommodate a change in a patch you're making. A few things
to keep in mind:
1) Your module/patch, as well as the rest of the Asterisk modules, may
not be the only consumers of ast_sockaddr. It is a fundamental data
structure in Asterisk; other third party modules may use it. Since
your change modifies the semantics of the struct, you will also break
them.
2) If the rest of your patch is never pushed back up to the main
project, then the change you've made has little positive affect, while
breaking most other external modules that use it. That's not good for
the project. On the other hand, if you propose your feature for
inclusion as well, there's more of a benefit to the change.

That aside, if you can make a change with a little bit more work that
maintains the existing usage semantics, you get the best of both
worlds: your new feature gets what it needs, and the mainline Asterisk
project - as well as other third party modules - aren't broken.

So yes, I'd just use a char array with a fixed length.

-- 
Matthew Jordan
Digium, Inc. | Director of Technology
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org