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, 8 Sep 2023 09:55:11 -0700
From:   Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     sdf@google.com, axboe@kernel.dk, asml.silence@gmail.com,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev,
        krisman@suse.de, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt
 commands
Message-ID: <ZPtR7+8YOWmtZHuD@gmail.com>
References: <20230904162504.1356068-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <20230905154951.0d0d3962@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230905154951.0d0d3962@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

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 haven't but I think it will not affect *much* this patchset.

> ? 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.

I can change the io_uring API in a way that we can avoid these
sockptr_t changes completely.

My plan is to mimic what getsockopt(2) is doing in io_uring cmd path, in
regard to optlen being an userpointer, instead of a value - which is
then translated to a KERNEL_SOCKPTR.

In this way, this change don't need to touch any sockptr field.

Thanks for the heads-up