[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200521091150.GA8401@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 11:11:50 +0200
From: 'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
Jon Maloy <jmaloy@...hat.com>,
Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
"drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com" <drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"target-devel@...r.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
"cluster-devel@...hat.com" <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
"ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
"ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rds-devel@....oracle.com" <rds-devel@....oracle.com>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: remove kernel_setsockopt and kernel_getsockopt v2
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:01:33AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> How much does this increase the kernel code by?
44 files changed, 660 insertions(+), 843 deletions(-)
> You are also replicating a lot of code making it more
> difficult to maintain.
No, I specifically don't.
> I don't think the performance of an socket option code
> really matters - it is usually done once when a socket
> is initialised and the other costs of establishing a
> connection will dominate.
>
> Pulling the user copies outside the [gs]etsocksopt switch
> statement not only reduces the code size (source and object)
> and trivially allows kernel_[sg]sockopt() to me added to
> the list of socket calls.
>
> It probably isn't possible to pull the usercopies right
> out into the syscall wrapper because of some broken
> requests.
Please read through the previous discussion of the rationale and the
options. We've been there before.
> I worried about whether getsockopt() should read the entire
> user buffer first. SCTP needs the some of it often (including a
> sockaddr_storage in one case), TCP needs it once.
> However the cost of reading a few words is small, and a big
> buffer probably needs setting to avoid leaking kernel
> memory if the structure has holes or fields that don't get set.
> Reading from userspace solves both issues.
As mention in the thread on the last series: That was my first idea, but
we have way to many sockopts, especially in obscure protocols that just
hard code the size. The chance of breaking userspace in a way that can't
be fixed without going back to passing user pointers to get/setsockopt
is way to high to commit to such a change unfortunately.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists