Re: [PATCH 0/3] PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY for Datagram (UDP)

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 12/12/20 10:58 AM, Victor Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/20 10:25 AM, Victor Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> right that makes sense.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> okay thanks Jens. i would have reiterated the intention but assumed it
>>> were implicit given I linked the initial conversation about enabling
>>> UDP_SEGMENT (GSO) and UDP_GRO through io_uring.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I CCed him on this reply. Soheil at the end of the first exchange
>>> thread said he audited the UDP paths and believed this to be safe.
>>>
>>> how/should I resubmit the patch with a proper intention explanation in
>>> the meta and reorder the patches? my first patch and all lol.
>>
>> Just post is as a v2 with the change noted in the cover letter. I'd also
>> ensure that it threads properly, right now it's just coming through as 4
>> separate emails at my end. If you're using git send-email, make sure you
>> add --thread to the arguments.
> 
> oh i didn't know about git send-email. i was manually constructing /
> sending them lol. thanks!

I'd recommend it, makes sure your mailer doesn't mangle anything either. FWIW,
this is what I do:

git format-patch sha1..sha2
mv 00*.patch /tmp/x

git send-email --no-signed-off-by-cc --thread --compose  --to linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org --cc torvalds@linux-foundation.org --cc viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk /tmp/x

(from a series I just sent out). And then I have the following section in
~/.gitconfig:

[sendemail]
from = Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
smtpserver = smtp.gmail.com
smtpuser = axboe@kernel.dk
smtpencryption = tls
smtppass = hunter2
smtpserverport = 587

for using gmail to send them out.

--compose will fire up your editor to construct the cover letter, and
when you're happy with it, save+exit and git send-email will ask whether
to proceed or abort.

That's about all there is to it, and provides a consistent way to send out
patch series.

-- 
Jens Axboe