On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 02:47:13PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Dave, > > setsockopt is the last place in architecture-independ code that still > uses set_fs to force the uaccess routines to operate on kernel pointers. > > This series adds a new sockptr_t type that can contained either a kernel > or user pointer, and which has accessors that do the right thing, and > then uses it for setsockopt, starting by refactoring some low-level > helpers and moving them over to it before finally doing the main > setsockopt method. > > Note that I could not get the eBPF selftests to work, so this has been > tested with a testing patch that always copies the data first and passes > a kernel pointer. This is something that works for most common sockopts > (and is something that the ePBF support relies on), but unfortunately > in various corner cases we either don't use the passed in length, or in > one case actually copy data back from setsockopt, so we unfortunately > can't just always do the copy in the highlevel code, which would have > been much nicer. could you rebase on bpf-next tree and we can route it this way then? we'll also test the whole thing before applying. sounds like v2 is needed anyway to address Eric's addr space concern?
