Re: [PATCH 2/4] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT

[Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>]

On 7/25/23 10:02 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 07/25, Breno Leitao wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:31:28AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>> On 07/24, Breno Leitao wrote:
>>>> Add support for getsockopt command (SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT), where
>>>> level is SOL_SOCKET. This is leveraging the sockptr_t infrastructure,
>>>> where a sockptr_t is either userspace or kernel space, and handled as
>>>> such.
>>>>
>>>> Function io_uring_cmd_getsockopt() is inspired by __sys_getsockopt().
>>>
>>> We probably need to also have bpf bits in the new
>>> io_uring_cmd_getsockopt?

I also think this inconsistency behavior should be avoided.

>>
>> It might be interesting to have the BPF hook for this function as
>> well, but I would like to do it in a following patch, so, I can
>> experiment with it better, if that is OK.
> 
> We are not using io_uring, so fine with me. However, having a way to bypass
> get/setsockopt bpf might be problematic for some other heavy io_uring
> users.
> 
> Lemme CC a bunch of Meta folks explicitly. I'm not sure what that state
> of bpf support in io_uring.

We have use cases on the "cgroup/{g,s}etsockopt". It will be a surprise when the 
user moves from the syscall {g,s}etsockopt to SOCKET_URING_OP_*SOCKOPT and 
figured that the bpf handling is skipped.