From: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
To: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] io_uring/cmd: BPF hook for setsockopt cmd
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:02:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 8/8/23 6:40 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Add support for BPF hooks for io_uring setsockopts command.
>
> This implementation follows a similar approach to what
> __sys_setsockopt() does, but, operates only on kernel memory instead of
> user memory (which is also possible, but not preferred since the kernel
> memory is already available)
>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
> ---
> io_uring/uring_cmd.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> index 3693e5779229..b7b27e4dbddd 100644
> --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> @@ -205,23 +205,42 @@ static inline int io_uring_cmd_setsockopt(struct socket *sock,
> {
> void __user *optval = u64_to_user_ptr(READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->optval));
> int optname = READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->optname);
> + sockptr_t optval_s = USER_SOCKPTR(optval);
> int optlen = READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->optlen);
> int level = READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->level);
> + char *kernel_optval = NULL;
> int err;
>
> err = security_socket_setsockopt(sock, level, optname);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> + if (!in_compat_syscall()) {
> + err = BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SETSOCKOPT(sock->sk, &level,
> + &optname,
> + USER_SOCKPTR(optval),
> + &optlen,
> + &kernel_optval);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> + if (err > 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Replace optval by the one returned by BPF */
> + if (kernel_optval)
> + optval_s = KERNEL_SOCKPTR(kernel_optval);
> + }
> +
> if (level == SOL_SOCKET && !sock_use_custom_sol_socket(sock))
> err = sock_setsockopt(sock, level, optname,
> - USER_SOCKPTR(optval), optlen);
> + optval_s, optlen);
> else if (unlikely(!sock->ops->setsockopt))
> err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> else
> err = sock->ops->setsockopt(sock, level, optname,
> - USER_SOCKPTR(koptval), optlen);
> + optval_s, optlen);
The bpf side changes make sense. Thanks.
With all the bpf pieces in place, __sys_{get,set}sockopt() is looking very
similar to io_uring_cmd_{get,set}sockopt(). There are small differences like one
takes fd and another already has a sock ptr, and io_uring_cmd_getsockopt() is
SOL_SOCKET only. In general, can they be refactored somehow such that future
changes don't have to be made in multiple places?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-09 22:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-08 13:40 [PATCH v2 0/8] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands Breno Leitao
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] net: expose sock_use_custom_sol_socket Breno Leitao
2023-08-08 16:13 ` Hugo Villeneuve
2023-08-08 17:21 ` Breno Leitao
2023-08-08 17:46 ` Hugo Villeneuve
2023-08-09 9:39 ` Breno Leitao
2023-08-08 20:12 ` Jeff Moyer
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT Breno Leitao
2023-08-09 4:07 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-09 10:27 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-09 13:21 ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-08-10 12:57 ` Pavel Begunkov
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT Breno Leitao
2023-08-09 6:01 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-09 11:09 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] io_uring/cmd: Extend support beyond SOL_SOCKET Breno Leitao
2023-08-09 16:32 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] bpf: Leverage sockptr_t in BPF getsockopt hook Breno Leitao
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] bpf: Leverage sockptr_t in BPF setsockopt hook Breno Leitao
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] io_uring/cmd: BPF hook for getsockopt cmd Breno Leitao
2023-08-09 4:17 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-09 16:46 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2023-08-10 8:26 ` Breno Leitao
2023-08-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] io_uring/cmd: BPF hook for setsockopt cmd Breno Leitao
2023-08-09 22:02 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2023-08-08 17:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands Stanislav Fomichev
2023-08-09 9:40 ` Breno Leitao
2023-08-09 16:26 ` Stanislav Fomichev
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] \
/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