Re: [PATCH 0/3] PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY for Datagram (UDP)

[Victor Stewart <v@nametag.social>]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/20 10:25 AM, Victor Stewart wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/12/20 8:31 AM, Victor Stewart wrote:
> >>> RE our conversation on the "[RFC 0/1] whitelisting UDP GSO and GRO
> >>> cmsgs" thread...
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/CAM1kxwi5m6i8hrtkw7nZYoziPTD-Wp03+fcsUwh3CuSc=81kUQ@mail.gmail.com/
> >>>
> >>> here are the patches we discussed.
> >>>
> >>> Victor Stewart (3):
> >>>    net/socket.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to __sys_sendmsg_sock
> >>>    net/ipv4/af_inet.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to inet_dgram_ops
> >>>    net/ipv6/af_inet6.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to inet6_dgram_ops
> >>>
> >>>    net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> >>>      |   1 +
> >>>    net/ipv6/af_inet6.c
> >>>     |   1 +
> >>>    net/socket.c
> >>>        |   8 +-
> >>>    3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Changes look fine to me, but a few comments:
> >>
> >> - I'd order 1/3 as 3/3, that ordering makes more sense as at that point it
> >>   could actually be used.
> >
> > right that makes sense.
> >
> >>
> >> - For adding it to af_inet/af_inet6, you should write a better commit message
> >>   on the reasoning for the change. Right now it just describes what the
> >>   patch does (which is obvious from the change), not WHY it's done. Really
> >>   goes for current 1/3 as well, commit messages need to be better in
> >>   general.
> >>
> >
> > okay thanks Jens. i would have reiterated the intention but assumed it
> > were implicit given I linked the initial conversation about enabling
> > UDP_SEGMENT (GSO) and UDP_GRO through io_uring.
> >
> >> I'd also CC Jann Horn on the series, he's the one that found an issue there
> >> in the past and also acked the previous change on doing PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY.
> >
> > I CCed him on this reply. Soheil at the end of the first exchange
> > thread said he audited the UDP paths and believed this to be safe.
> >
> > how/should I resubmit the patch with a proper intention explanation in
> > the meta and reorder the patches? my first patch and all lol.
>
> Just post is as a v2 with the change noted in the cover letter. I'd also
> ensure that it threads properly, right now it's just coming through as 4
> separate emails at my end. If you're using git send-email, make sure you
> add --thread to the arguments.

oh i didn't know about git send-email. i was manually constructing /
sending them lol. thanks!

>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>