On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 2:41 AM Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 10:35:08AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > 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. > > Right, that is what I've been using to test the changes. > > > 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. > > Sure, I can definitely do it. Do you want to see the new tests in this > patchset, or, in a following patches? Let's keep it in the same series if possible?
