On 12/12/20 10:58 AM, Victor Stewart wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 12/12/20 10:25 AM, Victor Stewart wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Just post is as a v2 with the change noted in the cover letter. I'd also >> ensure that it threads properly, right now it's just coming through as 4 >> separate emails at my end. If you're using git send-email, make sure you >> add --thread to the arguments. > > oh i didn't know about git send-email. i was manually constructing / > sending them lol. thanks! I'd recommend it, makes sure your mailer doesn't mangle anything either. FWIW, this is what I do: git format-patch sha1..sha2 mv 00*.patch /tmp/x git send-email --no-signed-off-by-cc --thread --compose --to linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --cc torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --cc viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /tmp/x (from a series I just sent out). And then I have the following section in ~/.gitconfig: [sendemail] from = Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> smtpserver = smtp.gmail.com smtpuser = axboe@xxxxxxxxx smtpencryption = tls smtppass = hunter2 smtpserverport = 587 for using gmail to send them out. --compose will fire up your editor to construct the cover letter, and when you're happy with it, save+exit and git send-email will ask whether to proceed or abort. That's about all there is to it, and provides a consistent way to send out patch series. -- Jens Axboe
