From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT SOL_SOCKET restriction
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:24:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250328-careful-sturdy-jellyfish-ddabbb@leitao> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0fd93d3b-6646-4399-8eb8-32262fd32ab3@samba.org>
Hello Stefan,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Am 28.03.25 um 15:30 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> > On 3/28/25 8:27 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> > > Hi Jens,
> > >
> > > while playing with the kernel QUIC driver [1],
> > > I noticed it does a lot of getsockopt() and setsockopt()
> > > calls to sync the required state into and out of the kernel.
> > >
> > > My long term plan is to let the userspace quic handshake logic
> > > work with SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT and SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT.
> > >
> > > The used level is SOL_QUIC and that won't work
> > > as io_uring_cmd_getsockopt() has a restriction to
> > > SOL_SOCKET, while there's no restriction in
> > > io_uring_cmd_setsockopt().
> > >
> > > What's the reason to have that restriction?
> > > And why is it only for the get path and not
> > > the set path?
> >
> > There's absolutely no reason for that, looks like a pure oversight?!
>
> It seems RFC had the limitation on both:
> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20230724142237.358769-1-leitao@debian.org/
>
> v0 had it only for get because of some userpointer restrictions:
> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20230724142237.358769-1-leitao@debian.org/
>
> The merged v7 also talks about the restriction:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231016134750.1381153-1-leitao@debian.org/
>
> Adding Breno ...
>
> It seems proto_ops->getsockopt is the problem as it's not changed
> to sockptr_t yet.
Correct. That is because Linus detests sockptr and didn't recommend
adding new code to use it.
> New code does *not* have that excuse.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgGV61xrG=gO0=dXH64o2TDWWrXn1mx-CX885JZ7h84Og@mail.gmail.com/
This was raised by Jakub in:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230905154951.0d0d3962@kernel.org/
So, in order to implement the missing part, we need to move this to
something else. The initial suggestion was to use iovec, but, I found it
very hard to move that code to iovec.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-28 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-28 14:27 SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT SOL_SOCKET restriction Stefan Metzmacher
2025-03-28 14:30 ` Jens Axboe
2025-03-28 15:02 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2025-03-28 15:08 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2025-03-28 16:24 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2025-03-28 15:02 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-03-28 15:03 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-03-28 16:34 ` Jens Axboe
2025-03-28 17:18 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-03-28 17:21 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-03-28 18:22 ` Breno Leitao
2025-03-29 10:59 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-03-28 19:41 ` Stefan Metzmacher
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250328-careful-sturdy-jellyfish-ddabbb@leitao \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=metze@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox