Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:45:00 -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: <ZSArfLaaGcfd8LH8@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

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/