Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/11/23 9:00?AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > 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. > > But that doesn't work, because sock->ops->ioctl() assumes the arg is > memory in userspace. Or do you mean change all of the sock->ops->ioctl() > to pass in on-stack memory (or similar) and have it work with a kernel > address? That was what I suggested indeed. It's about as much code change as this patch series. But it avoids the code duplication.
