From: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
To: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:45:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hello Jakub,
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 03:49:51PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 09:24:53 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Patches 1-2: Modify the BPF hooks to support sockptr_t, so, these functions
> > become flexible enough to accept user or kernel pointers for optval/optlen.
>
> Have you seen:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgGV61xrG=gO0=dXH64o2TDWWrXn1mx-CX885JZ7h84Og@mail.gmail.com/
>
> ? I wasn't aware that Linus felt this way, now I wonder if having
> sockptr_t spread will raise any red flags as this code flows back
> to him.
Thanks for the heads-up. I've been thinking about it for a while and I'd
like to hear what are the next steps here.
Let me first back up and state where we are, and what is the current
situation:
1) __sys_getsockopt() uses __user pointers for both optval and optlen
2) For io_uring command, Jens[1] suggested we get optlen from the io_uring
sqe, which is a kernel pointer/value.
Thus, we need to make the common code (callbacks) able to handle __user
and kernel pointers (for optlen, at least).
From a proto_ops callback perspective, ->setsockopt() uses sockptr.
int (*setsockopt)(struct socket *sock, int level,
int optname, sockptr_t optval,
unsigned int optlen);
Getsockopt() uses sockptr() for level=SOL_SOCKET:
int sk_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
sockptr_t optval, sockptr_t optlen)
But not for the other levels:
int (*getsockopt)(struct socket *sock, int level,
int optname, char __user *optval, int __user *optlen);
That said, if this patchset shouldn't use sockptr anymore, what is the
recommendation?
If we move this patchset to use iov_iter instead of sockptr, then I
understand we want to move *all* these callbacks to use iov_vec. Is this
the right direction?
Thanks for the guidance!
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-06 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-04 16:24 [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands Breno Leitao
2023-09-04 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 01/10] bpf: Leverage sockptr_t in BPF getsockopt hook Breno Leitao
2023-09-04 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 02/10] bpf: Leverage sockptr_t in BPF setsockopt hook Breno Leitao
2023-09-04 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 03/10] net/socket: Break down __sys_setsockopt Breno Leitao
2023-09-04 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 04/10] net/socket: Break down __sys_getsockopt Breno Leitao
2023-09-05 9:36 ` David Laight
2023-09-05 10:29 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-04 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 05/10] io_uring/cmd: Pass compat mode in issue_flags Breno Leitao
2023-09-04 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 06/10] selftests/net: Extract uring helpers to be reusable Breno Leitao
2023-09-04 16:25 ` [PATCH v4 07/10] io_uring/cmd: return -EOPNOTSUPP if net is disabled Breno Leitao
2023-09-05 12:32 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2023-09-08 17:04 ` Breno Leitao
2023-09-04 16:25 ` [PATCH v4 08/10] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT Breno Leitao
2023-09-05 12:24 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2023-09-04 16:25 ` [PATCH v4 09/10] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT Breno Leitao
2023-09-05 12:24 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2023-09-04 16:25 ` [PATCH v4 10/10] selftests/bpf/sockopt: Add io_uring support Breno Leitao
2023-09-05 22:49 ` [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands Jakub Kicinski
2023-09-08 16:55 ` Breno Leitao
2023-10-06 15:45 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2023-10-09 10:11 ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-10-09 13:28 ` Breno Leitao
2023-10-09 16:55 ` Jakub Kicinski
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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