[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPtR7+8YOWmtZHuD@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 09:55:11 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: sdf@...gle.com, axboe@...nel.dk, asml.silence@...il.com,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
krisman@...e.de, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt
commands
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 03:49:51PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 09:24:53 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Patches 1-2: Modify the BPF hooks to support sockptr_t, so, these functions
> > become flexible enough to accept user or kernel pointers for optval/optlen.
>
> Have you seen:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgGV61xrG=gO0=dXH64o2TDWWrXn1mx-CX885JZ7h84Og@mail.gmail.com/
I haven't but I think it will not affect *much* this patchset.
> ? I wasn't aware that Linus felt this way, now I wonder if having
> sockptr_t spread will raise any red flags as this code flows back
> to him.
I can change the io_uring API in a way that we can avoid these
sockptr_t changes completely.
My plan is to mimic what getsockopt(2) is doing in io_uring cmd path, in
regard to optlen being an userpointer, instead of a value - which is
then translated to a KERNEL_SOCKPTR.
In this way, this change don't need to touch any sockptr field.
Thanks for the heads-up
Powered by blists - more mailing lists