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!
