Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/11/23 8:51?AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 4/11/23 8:36?AM, David Ahern wrote: > >>> On 4/11/23 6:00 AM, Breno Leitao wrote: > >>>> I am not sure if avoiding io_uring details in network code is possible. > >>>> > >>>> The "struct proto"->uring_cmd callback implementation (tcp_uring_cmd() > >>>> in the TCP case) could be somewhere else, such as in the io_uring/ > >>>> directory, but, I think it might be cleaner if these implementations are > >>>> closer to function assignment (in the network subsystem). > >>>> > >>>> And this function (tcp_uring_cmd() for instance) is the one that I am > >>>> planning to map io_uring CMDs to ioctls. Such as SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ > >>>> -> SIOCINQ. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know if you have any other idea in mind. > >>> > >>> I am not convinced that this io_uring_cmd is needed. This is one > >>> in-kernel subsystem calling into another, and there are APIs for that. > >>> All of this set is ioctl based and as Willem noted a little refactoring > >>> separates the get_user/put_user out so that in-kernel can call can be > >>> made with existing ops. > >> > >> How do you want to wire it up then? We can't use fops->unlocked_ioctl() > >> obviously, and we already have ->uring_cmd() for this purpose. > > > > Does this suggestion not work? > > Not sure I follow, what suggestion? > This quote from earlier in the thread: I was thinking just having sock_uring_cmd call sock->ops->ioctl, like sock_do_ioctl. > > > >> I do think the right thing to do is have a common helper that returns > >> whatever value you want (or sets it), and split the ioctl parts into a > >> wrapper around that that simply copies in/out as needed. Then > >> ->uring_cmd() could call that, or you could some exported function that > >> does supports that. > >> > >> This works for the basic cases, though I do suspect we'll want to go > >> down the ->uring_cmd() at some point for more advanced cases or cases > >> that cannot sanely be done in an ioctl fashion. > > > > Right now the two examples are ioctls that return an integer. Do you > > already have other calls in mind? That would help estimate whether > > ->uring_cmd() indeed will be needed and we might as well do it now. > > Right, it's a proof of concept. But we'd want to support anything that > setsockopt/getsockopt would do. This is necessary so that direct > descriptors (eg ones that describe a struct file that isn't in the > process file table or have a regular fd) can be used for anything that a > regular file can. Beyond that, perhaps various things necessary for > efficient zero copy rx. > > I do think we can make the ->uring_cmd() hookup a bit more palatable in > terms of API. It really should be just a sub-opcode and then arguments > to support that. The grunt of the work is really refactoring the ioctl > and set/getsockopt bits so that they can be called in-kernel rather than > assuming copy in/out is needed. Once that is done, the actual uring_cmd > hookup should be simple and trivial. That sounds like what I proposed above. That suggestion was only for the narrow case where ioctls return an integer. The general approach has to handle any put_user. Though my initial skim of TCP, UDP and RAW did not bring up any other forms. getsockopt indeed has plenty of examples, such as receive zerocopy.
