[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64d392c0235c6_267bde294c3@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 09:21:04 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, sdf@...gle.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
asml.silence@...il.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT
Breno Leitao wrote:
> Add support for getsockopt command (SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT), where
> level is SOL_SOCKET. This is leveraging the sockptr_t infrastructure,
> where a sockptr_t is either userspace or kernel space, and handled as
> such.
>
> Function io_uring_cmd_getsockopt() is inspired by __sys_getsockopt().
>
> Differently from the getsockopt(2), the optlen field is not a userspace
> pointers. In getsockopt(2), userspace provides optlen pointer, which is
> overwritten by the kernel. In this implementation, userspace passes a
> u32, and the new value is returned in cqe->res. I.e., optlen is not a
> pointer.
>
> Important to say that userspace needs to keep the pointer alive until
> the CQE is completed.
What bad things can happen otherwise?
The kernel is not depending on a well behaved process for its
correctness here, is it? Any user pages have to be pinned while
kernel might refer to them, for instance.
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists