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:   Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:35:08 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20230808134049.1407498-1-leitao@debian.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230808134049.1407498-1-leitao@debian.org>
Message-ID: <ZNJ8zGcYClv/VCwG@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
To:     Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc:     axboe@kernel.dk, asml.silence@gmail.com,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 08/08, Breno Leitao wrote:
> This patchset adds support for getsockopt (SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT)
> and setsockopt (SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT) in io_uring commands.
> SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT implements generic case, covering all levels
> nad optnames. On the other hand, SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT just
> implements level SOL_SOCKET case, which seems to be the
> most common level parameter for get/setsockopt(2).
> 
> struct proto_ops->setsockopt() uses sockptr instead of userspace
> pointers, which makes it easy to bind to io_uring. Unfortunately
> proto_ops->getsockopt() callback uses userspace pointers, except for
> SOL_SOCKET, which is handled by sk_getsockopt(). Thus, this patchset
> leverages sk_getsockopt() to imlpement the SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT
> case.
> 
> In order to support BPF hooks, I modified the hooks to use  sockptr, so,
> it is flexible enough to accept user or kernel pointers for
> optval/optlen.
> 
> PS1: For getsockopt command, the optlen field is not a userspace
> pointers, but an absolute value, so this is slightly different from
> getsockopt(2) behaviour. The new optlen value is returned in cqe->res.
> 
> PS2: The userspace pointers need to be alive until the operation is
> completed.
> 
> These changes were tested with a new test[1] in liburing. On the BPF
> side, I tested that no regression was introduced by running "test_progs"
> self test using "sockopt" test case.
> 
> [1] Link: https://github.com/leitao/liburing/blob/getsock/test/socket-getsetsock-cmd.c
> 
> RFC -> V1:
> 	* Copy user memory at io_uring subsystem, and call proto_ops
> 	  callbacks using kernel memory
> 	* Implement all the cases for SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT

I did a quick pass, will take a close look later today. So far everything makes
sense to me.

Should we properly test it as well?
We have tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockopt.c which does
most of the sanity checks, but it uses regular socket/{g,s}etsockopt
syscalls. Seems like it should be pretty easy to extend this with
io_uring path? tools/testing/selftests/net/io_uring_zerocopy_tx.c
already implements minimal wrappers which we can most likely borrow.