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:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 10:03:40 -0700
From:   Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Cc:     asml.silence@gmail.com, axboe@kernel.dk, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, leit@meta.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT
Message-ID: <ZMP07KtOeJ09ejAd@gmail.com>
References: <20230724142237.358769-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <20230724142237.358769-3-leitao@debian.org>
 <ZL61cIrQuo92Xzbu@google.com>
 <ZL+VfRiJQqrrLe/9@gmail.com>
 <ZMAAMKTaKSIKi1RW@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZMAAMKTaKSIKi1RW@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello Stanislav,

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 10:02:40AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 07/25, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:31:28AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On 07/24, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > > Add support for getsockopt command (SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT), where
> > > > level is SOL_SOCKET. This is leveraging the sockptr_t infrastructure,
> > > > where a sockptr_t is either userspace or kernel space, and handled as
> > > > such.
> > > > 
> > > > Function io_uring_cmd_getsockopt() is inspired by __sys_getsockopt().
> > > 
> > > We probably need to also have bpf bits in the new
> > > io_uring_cmd_getsockopt?
> > 
> > It might be interesting to have the BPF hook for this function as
> > well, but I would like to do it in a following patch, so, I can
> > experiment with it better, if that is OK.

I spent smoe time looking at the problem, and I understand we want to
call something as BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_{G,S}ETSOCKOPT() into
io_uring_cmd_{g,s}etsockopt().

Per the previous conversation with Williem,
io_uring_cmd_{g,s}etsockopt() should use optval as a user pointer (void __user
*optval), and optlen as a kernel integer (it comes as from the io_uring
SQE), such as:

	void __user *optval = u64_to_user_ptr(READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->optval));
	int optlen = READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->optlen);

Function BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT() calls
__cgroup_bpf_run_filter_getsockopt() which expects userpointer for
optlen and optval.

At the same time BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT_KERN() expects kernel
pointers for both optlen and optval.

In this current patchset, it has user pointer for optval and kernel value
for optlen. I.e., a third combination.  So, none of the functions would
work properly, and we probably do not want to create another function.

I am wondering if it is a good idea to move
__cgroup_bpf_run_filter_getsockopt() to use sockptr_t, so, it will be
able to adapt to any combination.

Any feedback is appreciate.
Thanks!