Re: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: Introduce getsockname io_uring cmd

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 10/27/25 3:20 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
> 
>> On 10/24/25 9:49 AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>>> Introduce a socket-specific io_uring_cmd to support
>>> getsockname/getpeername via io_uring.  I made this an io_uring_cmd
>>> instead of a new operation to avoid polluting the command namespace with
>>> what is exclusively a socket operation.  In addition, since we don't
>>> need to conform to existing interfaces, this merges the
>>> getsockname/getpeername in a single operation, since the implementation
>>> is pretty much the same.
>>>
>>> This has been frequently requested, for instance at [1] and more
>>> recently in the project Discord channel. The main use-case is to support
>>> fixed socket file descriptors.
>>
>> Just two nits below, otherwise looks good!
>>
>>> diff --git a/io_uring/cmd_net.c b/io_uring/cmd_net.c
>>> index 27a09aa4c9d0..092844358729 100644
>>> --- a/io_uring/cmd_net.c
>>> +++ b/io_uring/cmd_net.c
>>> @@ -132,6 +132,28 @@ static int io_uring_cmd_timestamp(struct socket *sock,
>>>  	return -EAGAIN;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static int io_uring_cmd_getsockname(struct socket *sock,
>>> +				    struct io_uring_cmd *cmd,
>>> +				    unsigned int issue_flags)
>>> +{
>>> +	const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe = cmd->sqe;
>>> +
>>
>> Random newline.
> 
> Done, but this fix will totally ruin the diffstat.  :(

What do you mean, it'll look even better as you're now killing a
redundant line you added :)

>>> +	struct sockaddr_storage address;
>>> +	struct sockaddr __user *uaddr;
>>> +	int __user *ulen;
>>> +	unsigned int peer;
>>> +
>>> +	uaddr = u64_to_user_ptr(READ_ONCE(sqe->addr));
>>> +	ulen = u64_to_user_ptr(sqe->addr3);
>>> +	peer = READ_ONCE(sqe->optlen);
>>> +
>>> +	if (sqe->ioprio || sqe->__pad1 || sqe->len || sqe->rw_flags)
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>
>> Most/all prep handlers tend to check these first, then proceed with
>> setting up if not set. Would probably make sense to mirror that here
>> too.
> 
> Ack. will wait a few days for feedback on the network side before the
> v2.

Sounds good, thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe