On 4/11/23 9:24?AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > 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. Breno, want to tackle that as a prep patch first? Should make the functional changes afterwards much more straightforward, and will allow support for anything really. -- Jens Axboe
