netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:55:18 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, sdf@...gle.com,
 axboe@...nel.dk, asml.silence@...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 Mon, 9 Oct 2023 06:28:00 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> Correct. The current discussion is only related to optlen in the
> getsockopt() callbacks (invoked when level != SOL_SOCKET). Everything
> else (getsockopt(level=SOL_SOCKET..) and setsockopt) is using sockptr.
> 
> Is it bad if we review/merge this code as is (using sockptr), and start
> the iov_iter/getsockopt() refactor in a follow-up thread?

Sorry for the delay, I only looked at the code now :S
Agreed, that there's no need to worry about the sockptr spread
in this series. It looks good to go in.