On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:34:28AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 10:45 AM Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Breno Leitao <leit@xxxxxx>
> >
> > This patchset creates the initial plumbing for a io_uring command for
> > sockets.
> >
> > For now, create two uring commands for sockets, SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCOUTQ
> > and SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ. They are similar to ioctl operations
> > SIOCOUTQ and SIOCINQ. In fact, the code on the protocol side itself is
> > heavily based on the ioctl operations.
>
> This duplicates all the existing ioctl logic of each protocol.
>
> Can this just call the existing proto_ops.ioctl internally and translate from/to
> io_uring format as needed?
This is doable, and we have two options in this case:
1) Create a ioctl core function that does not call `put_user()`, and
call it from both the `udp_ioctl` and `udp_uring_cmd`, doing the proper
translations. Something as:
int udp_ioctl_core(struct sock *sk, int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
int amount;
switch (cmd) {
case SIOCOUTQ: {
amount = sk_wmem_alloc_get(sk);
break;
}
case SIOCINQ: {
amount = max_t(int, 0, first_packet_length(sk));
break;
}
default:
return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
}
return amount;
}
int udp_ioctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
int amount = udp_ioctl_core(sk, cmd, arg);
return put_user(amount, (int __user *)arg);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(udp_ioctl);
2) Create a function for each "case entry". This seems a bit silly for
UDP, but it makes more sense for other protocols. The code will look
something like:
int udp_ioctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
switch (cmd) {
case SIOCOUTQ:
{
int amount = udp_ioctl_siocoutq();
return put_user(amount, (int __user *)arg);
}
...
}
What is the best approach?
