On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 10:56:23AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 7/25/23 10:02 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 07/25, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:31:28AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > On 07/24, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > > > Add support for getsockopt command (SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT), where
> > > > > level is SOL_SOCKET. This is leveraging the sockptr_t infrastructure,
> > > > > where a sockptr_t is either userspace or kernel space, and handled as
> > > > > such.
> > > > >
> > > > > Function io_uring_cmd_getsockopt() is inspired by __sys_getsockopt().
> > > >
> > > > We probably need to also have bpf bits in the new
> > > > io_uring_cmd_getsockopt?
>
> I also think this inconsistency behavior should be avoided.
>
> > >
> > > It might be interesting to have the BPF hook for this function as
> > > well, but I would like to do it in a following patch, so, I can
> > > experiment with it better, if that is OK.
> >
> > We are not using io_uring, so fine with me. However, having a way to bypass
> > get/setsockopt bpf might be problematic for some other heavy io_uring
> > users.
> >
> > Lemme CC a bunch of Meta folks explicitly. I'm not sure what that state
> > of bpf support in io_uring.
>
> We have use cases on the "cgroup/{g,s}etsockopt". It will be a surprise when
> the user moves from the syscall {g,s}etsockopt to SOCKET_URING_OP_*SOCKOPT
> and figured that the bpf handling is skipped.
Ok, I will add the BPF bits in the next revision then. Thanks for
clarifying it.
