[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <750bc4e7-c2ce-e33d-dc98-483af96ff330@kernel.dk>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 10:07:17 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Victor Stewart <v@...etag.social>,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY for Datagram (UDP)
On 12/12/20 8:31 AM, Victor Stewart wrote:
> RE our conversation on the "[RFC 0/1] whitelisting UDP GSO and GRO
> cmsgs" thread...
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/CAM1kxwi5m6i8hrtkw7nZYoziPTD-Wp03+fcsUwh3CuSc=81kUQ@mail.gmail.com/
>
> here are the patches we discussed.
>
> Victor Stewart (3):
> net/socket.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to __sys_sendmsg_sock
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to inet_dgram_ops
> net/ipv6/af_inet6.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to inet6_dgram_ops
>
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> | 1 +
> net/ipv6/af_inet6.c
> | 1 +
> net/socket.c
> | 8 +-
> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Changes look fine to me, but a few comments:
- I'd order 1/3 as 3/3, that ordering makes more sense as at that point it
could actually be used.
- For adding it to af_inet/af_inet6, you should write a better commit message
on the reasoning for the change. Right now it just describes what the
patch does (which is obvious from the change), not WHY it's done. Really
goes for current 1/3 as well, commit messages need to be better in
general.
I'd also CC Jann Horn on the series, he's the one that found an issue there
in the past and also acked the previous change on doing PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists