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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > ? 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@xxxxxxxxx/
