Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/3] net: move .getsockopt away from __user buffers

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 1/31/26 8:37 AM, David Laight wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 17:19:55 -0800
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 at 14:40, David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is not much point making the 'optval' parameter more than
>>> a structure of a user and kernel address - one of which will be NULL.  
>>
>> That's exactly what we do *NOT* want. Because people will get it
>> wrong, and then we're back to the bad old days where trivial bugs
>> result in security issues.
> 
> It can still be a (semi-)transparent structure that code isn't allowed
> to change. That is no different from using iov_iter.

Then why not just use iov_iter?! FWIW, I fully agree with Linus on this
one. We have an existing abstraction, we should use it. We've previously
optimized common cases, like ITER_UBUF, if that ended up being
important. We're better off using iov_iter and improving that, rather
than some new mixed pointer abomination.

>> Can you point to an actual case where setsockopt / getsockopt would be
>> performance-critical? Typically you do it once or twice.
> 
> IIRC a really horrid one - I think for async io.
> That is also one of the few where the supplied length is a lie.

Huh?

-- 
Jens Axboe