Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 18:51:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc:     john.fastabend@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        jakub@cloudflare.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        pabeni@redhat.com, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] net: Add distinct sk_psock field
Message-ID: <20220713185136.0e3c4fb2@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <165772238175.1757.4978340330606055982.stgit@oracle-102.nfsv4.dev>
References: <165772238175.1757.4978340330606055982.stgit@oracle-102.nfsv4.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:26:21 -0400 Chuck Lever wrote:
> The sk_psock facility populates the sk_user_data field with the
> address of an extra bit of metadata. User space sockets never
> populate the sk_user_data field, so this has worked out fine.
> 
> However, kernel socket consumers such as the RPC client and server
> do populate the sk_user_data field. The sk_psock() function cannot
> tell that the content of sk_user_data does not point to psock
> metadata, so it will happily return a pointer to something else,
> cast to a struct sk_psock.
> 
> Thus kernel socket consumers and psock currently cannot co-exist.
> 
> We could educate sk_psock() to return NULL if sk_user_data does
> not point to a struct sk_psock. However, a more general solution
> that enables full co-existence psock and other uses of sk_user_data
> might be more interesting.
> 
> Move the struct sk_psock address to its own pointer field so that
> the contents of the sk_user_data field is preserved.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>

Thanks for posting separately. We already have the (somewhat
nondescript) SK_USER_DATA_BPF, can we use another bit for psock?
Or add a u8 user_data type and have TCP ULP reject if the type is
anything but psock. I'm not sure why psock is special to deserve 
its own pointer.