linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <643573df81e20_11117c2942@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:51:11 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, asml.silence@...il.com,
        leit@...com, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, dccp@...r.kernel.org, mptcp@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
        matthieu.baerts@...sares.net, marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring_cmd support for sockets

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/11/23 8:36?AM, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 4/11/23 6:00 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> >> I am not sure if avoiding io_uring details in network code is possible.
> >>
> >> The "struct proto"->uring_cmd callback implementation (tcp_uring_cmd()
> >> in the TCP case) could be somewhere else, such as in the io_uring/
> >> directory, but, I think it might be cleaner if these implementations are
> >> closer to function assignment (in the network subsystem).
> >>
> >> And this function (tcp_uring_cmd() for instance) is the one that I am
> >> planning to map io_uring CMDs to ioctls. Such as SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ
> >> -> SIOCINQ.
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you have any other idea in mind.
> > 
> > I am not convinced that this io_uring_cmd is needed. This is one
> > in-kernel subsystem calling into another, and there are APIs for that.
> > All of this set is ioctl based and as Willem noted a little refactoring
> > separates the get_user/put_user out so that in-kernel can call can be
> > made with existing ops.
> 
> How do you want to wire it up then? We can't use fops->unlocked_ioctl()
> obviously, and we already have ->uring_cmd() for this purpose.

Does this suggestion not work?

> > I was thinking just having sock_uring_cmd call sock->ops->ioctl, like
> > sock_do_ioctl.
 
> I do think the right thing to do is have a common helper that returns
> whatever value you want (or sets it), and split the ioctl parts into a
> wrapper around that that simply copies in/out as needed. Then
> ->uring_cmd() could call that, or you could some exported function that
> does supports that.
> 
> This works for the basic cases, though I do suspect we'll want to go
> down the ->uring_cmd() at some point for more advanced cases or cases
> that cannot sanely be done in an ioctl fashion.

Right now the two examples are ioctls that return an integer. Do you 
already have other calls in mind? That would help estimate whether
->uring_cmd() indeed will be needed and we might as well do it now.