Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Raw socket #2111

Open
wants to merge 46 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Raw socket #2111

wants to merge 46 commits into from

Conversation

smithAchang
Copy link

@smithAchang smithAchang commented Sep 3, 2023

I have completed the work of RAW Socket by referring ACE_ICMP_Socket & ACE_Sock_Dgram classes, these are provided by ACE long time ago.

I have tested the API of RAW Socket on Linux platforms, such as Ubuntu 20.04 and CentOS 7.
On windows platform , there exist some surprise maybe for OS limits, RAW_Socket_Test case can not pass through.

For considering the fact that applications using RAW Socket almost run on Unix* or Linux* platforms, this failure is trivial!

So I decide to launch the PR :)


This PR has been launched some months ago, but it is based on master branch .
This time I launch a new PR based on a special branch :)

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Added a new ACE_RAW_SOCKET class for low-level network communication
    • Supports raw socket operations with both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols
    • Provides methods for sending and receiving network data with advanced options
  • Documentation

    • Added comprehensive test suite for raw socket functionality
  • Tests

    • Introduced new test cases for raw socket operations
    • Added platform-specific (Linux) testing for raw socket implementation

@jwillemsen jwillemsen added the needs review Needs to be reviewed label Sep 4, 2023
@smithAchang
Copy link
Author

Because I copy some source codes from SOCK_Dgram.cpp,

so Codacy Static Code Analysis will produce the same issues for SOCK_Dgram.cpp if using the cppcheck tool to check it.

By the way, the Codacy team tells me to use cppcheck tool

Can these issues be ignored ?

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 31, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a new implementation for raw socket functionality in the ACE (Adaptive Communicative Environment) framework. A complete set of files has been added to support raw socket operations, including a new class ACE_RAW_SOCKET with implementation in .cpp, .h, and .inl files. The changes include methods for sending and receiving data, managing socket options, and supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols. A comprehensive test suite has also been developed to validate the new raw socket functionality, with specific focus on Linux platform compatibility.

Changes

File Change Summary
ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.cpp New implementation of ACE_RAW_SOCKET class with methods for socket creation, sending, receiving, and error handling
ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.h Header file defining ACE_RAW_SOCKET class with constructors, data transfer methods, and utility functions
ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.inl Added inline methods for checking send-only status and retrieving protocol information
ACE/ace/ace.mpc Added RAW_Socket.cpp to source files
ACE/tests/RAW_Socket_Test.cpp New test suite with comprehensive tests for raw socket functionality
ACE/tests/run_test.lst Added RAW_Socket_Test for Linux platform
ACE/tests/tests.mpc Added project definition for RAW Socket Test

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client as RAW Socket Client
    participant RawSocket as ACE_RAW_SOCKET
    participant Network as Network Interface

    Client->>RawSocket: open(local_addr, protocol)
    RawSocket-->>Network: Create Raw Socket
    
    Client->>RawSocket: send(data, remote_addr)
    RawSocket->>Network: Transmit Raw Packet
    
    Network->>RawSocket: Receive Packet
    RawSocket-->>Client: recv(buffer, remote_addr)
Loading

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop, through network's might,
Raw sockets dance with pure delight!
Packets flying, protocols sing,
ACE framework gives networking its wing! 🌐
Rabbit's code leaps, socket's embrace! 🚀

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (9)
ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.h (3)

34-34: Use the correct article and spelling in the brief description.
The comment currently says "An RAW Socket implemention class." which contains minor grammatical issues.

- * @brief An RAW Socket implemention class.
+ * @brief A RAW Socket implementation class.

43-46: Clarify fragmentation limitations.
Your documentation for IPPROTO_RAW mentions no support for fragmentation. Consider adding precise notes about packet size limitations and any recommendations for manual segmentation when exceeding MTU sizes, to avoid confusion for developers.


56-56: Fix misspelling in the constructor documentation.
"bind a local address and fiter UDP protocol" should be "bind a local address and filter UDP protocol."

- /// Constructor that bind a local address and fiter UDP protocol.
+ /// Constructor that binds a local address and filters UDP protocol.
ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.cpp (2)

234-235: Acknowledge that no partial-sent tracking is performed.
The send method uses ACE_OS::sendto, but if the OS applies any packet-level constraints, partial writes might occur in theory. Though rare for raw sockets, a quick note or comment clarifying that partial sends are neither handled nor expected could improve maintainability.


364-379: Address permissions for opening raw sockets.
On many operating systems, raw sockets require elevated privileges (e.g., root on Linux). Consider adding explicit error checks or user-friendly messages when permission is denied, enhancing diagnostics for end users.

ACE/tests/RAW_Socket_Test.cpp (4)

229-229: Correct minor typo in error message.
"reopen in failue" should read "reopen in failure."

 ACE_TEST_EXCEPTION_RETURN(rc < 0, "  reopen in failue\n");
+ACE_TEST_EXCEPTION_RETURN(rc < 0, "  reopen in failure\n");

236-236: Fix spelling in function name.
Rename "readUdpSocektToEmpty" to "readUdpSocketToEmpty" to maintain consistency and clarity.

-static void
-readUdpSocektToEmpty(ACE_SOCK_Dgram& udpSock)
+static void
+readUdpSocketToEmpty(ACE_SOCK_Dgram& udpSock)

283-283: Fix spelling in debug message.
"receive prcess reach the end" should be "receive process reach the end."

- ACE_DEBUG ((LM_INFO, "%C receive prcess reach the end ...\n", __func__));
+ ACE_DEBUG ((LM_INFO, "%C receive process reach the end ...\n", __func__));

714-714: Clarify the error message condition.
The log statement "raw4 socket can send using iov" appears in the error path rc == -1. Consider rephrasing it for consistent debugging context:

- ACE_TEST_EXCEPTION_RETURN(rc  == -1, "  raw4 socket can send using iov\n");
+ ACE_TEST_EXCEPTION_RETURN(rc  == -1, "  raw4 socket failed to send using iov\n");
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 408bd95 and 834e54d.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)
  • ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.cpp (1 hunks)
  • ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.h (1 hunks)
  • ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.inl (1 hunks)
  • ACE/ace/ace.mpc (1 hunks)
  • ACE/tests/RAW_Socket_Test.cpp (1 hunks)
  • ACE/tests/run_test.lst (1 hunks)
  • ACE/tests/tests.mpc (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.cpp (1)

40-45: Confirm handling of partial data writes.
The ACE_SEND_EXCEPTION_RETURN() macro checks whether the handle is ready for writing, but doesn't retry if only part of the data was written. Raw sockets typically send packets in one go, yet it may be prudent to verify partial writes won't occur under certain network conditions.

Would you like me to generate a script that searches for partial-send handling uses across the codebase to confirm no partial writes exist?

ACE/ace/RAW_Socket.inl (2)

7-11: LGTM!

The function correctly determines if the socket is send-only by checking if the protocol is IPPROTO_RAW.


13-17: LGTM!

The function correctly returns the protocol value stored in the class member.

ACE/tests/run_test.lst (1)

201-201: LGTM!

The test entry correctly specifies Linux platform restriction, which aligns with the PR objectives mentioning that the implementation has been tested on Linux platforms and has known issues on Windows.

ACE/ace/ace.mpc (1)

198-198: LGTM!

The source file is correctly added to the project configuration in a sorted order.

ACE/tests/tests.mpc (1)

1430-1436: LGTM!

The test project configuration follows the established pattern and correctly avoids the ace_for_tao dependency.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs review Needs to be reviewed
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants