On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/12/20 8:31 AM, Victor Stewart wrote: > > RE our conversation on the "[RFC 0/1] whitelisting UDP GSO and GRO > > cmsgs" thread... > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/CAM1kxwi5m6i8hrtkw7nZYoziPTD-Wp03+fcsUwh3CuSc=81kUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > here are the patches we discussed. > > > > Victor Stewart (3): > > net/socket.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to __sys_sendmsg_sock > > net/ipv4/af_inet.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to inet_dgram_ops > > net/ipv6/af_inet6.c: add PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY to inet6_dgram_ops > > > > net/ipv4/af_inet.c > > | 1 + > > net/ipv6/af_inet6.c > > | 1 + > > net/socket.c > > | 8 +- > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Changes look fine to me, but a few comments: > > - I'd order 1/3 as 3/3, that ordering makes more sense as at that point it > could actually be used. right that makes sense. > > - For adding it to af_inet/af_inet6, you should write a better commit message > on the reasoning for the change. Right now it just describes what the > patch does (which is obvious from the change), not WHY it's done. Really > goes for current 1/3 as well, commit messages need to be better in > general. > okay thanks Jens. i would have reiterated the intention but assumed it were implicit given I linked the initial conversation about enabling UDP_SEGMENT (GSO) and UDP_GRO through io_uring. > I'd also CC Jann Horn on the series, he's the one that found an issue there > in the past and also acked the previous change on doing PROTO_CMSG_DATA_ONLY. I CCed him on this reply. Soheil at the end of the first exchange thread said he audited the UDP paths and believed this to be safe. how/should I resubmit the patch with a proper intention explanation in the meta and reorder the patches? my first patch and all lol. > > -- > Jens Axboe >
