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

Breno Leitao
2023-10-06T15:45:09Z

Hello Jakub,

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 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.

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been thinking about it for a while and I'd
like to hear what are the next steps here.

Let me first back up and state where we are, and what is the current
situation:

1) __sys_getsockopt() uses __user pointers for both optval and optlen
2) For io_uring command, Jens[1] suggested we get optlen from the io_uring
sqe, which is a kernel pointer/value.

Thus, we need to make the common code (callbacks) able to handle __user
and kernel pointers (for optlen, at least).

From a proto_ops callback perspective, ->setsockopt() uses sockptr.

int (*setsockopt)(struct socket *sock, int level,
int optname, sockptr_t optval,
unsigned int optlen);

Getsockopt() uses sockptr() for level=SOL_SOCKET:

int sk_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
sockptr_t optval, sockptr_t optlen)

But not for the other levels:

int (*getsockopt)(struct socket *sock, int level,
int optname, char __user *optval, int __user *optlen);

That said, if this patchset shouldn't use sockptr anymore, what is the
recommendation?

If we move this patchset to use iov_iter instead of sockptr, then I
understand we want to move *all* these callbacks to use iov_vec. Is this
the right direction?

Thanks for the guidance!

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/efe602f1-8e72-466c-b796-0083fd1c6d82@kernel.dk/