netdev - Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Add io_uring command support for sockets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZJSamAduIRJ3b/TX@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:01:44 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	leit@...a.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>,
	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Simon Ser <contact@...rsion.fr>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:IO_URING" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Add io_uring command support for sockets

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:39:48AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 19:03:04 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Correct. For now we are just using 0xa0 and 0xa1, and eventually we
> > > might need more ioctls numbers.
> > > 
> > > I got these numbers finding a unused block and having some room for
> > > expansion, as suggested by Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst,
> > > that says:
> > > 
> > > 	If you are writing a driver for a new device and need a letter, pick an
> > > 	unused block with enough room for expansion: 32 to 256 ioctl commands.  
> > 
> > So is this the first io_uring ioctl?  If so, why is this an ioctl and
> > not just a "normal" io_uring call?
> 
> +1, the mixing with classic ioctl seems confusing and I'm not sure 
> if it buys us anything.

Sure, let me remove the dependency on ioctl()s then.