From: Christoph Hellwig > Sent: 20 May 2020 20:55 > > this series removes the kernel_setsockopt and kernel_getsockopt > functions, and instead switches their users to small functions that > implement setting (or in one case getting) a sockopt directly using > a normal kernel function call with type safety and all the other > benefits of not having a function call. > > In some cases these functions seem pretty heavy handed as they do > a lock_sock even for just setting a single variable, but this mirrors > the real setsockopt implementation unlike a few drivers that just set > set the fields directly. How much does this increase the kernel code by? You are also replicating a lot of code making it more difficult to maintain. I don't think the performance of an socket option code really matters - it is usually done once when a socket is initialised and the other costs of establishing a connection will dominate. Pulling the user copies outside the [gs]etsocksopt switch statement not only reduces the code size (source and object) and trivially allows kernel_[sg]sockopt() to me added to the list of socket calls. It probably isn't possible to pull the usercopies right out into the syscall wrapper because of some broken requests. I worried about whether getsockopt() should read the entire user buffer first. SCTP needs the some of it often (including a sockaddr_storage in one case), TCP needs it once. However the cost of reading a few words is small, and a big buffer probably needs setting to avoid leaking kernel memory if the structure has holes or fields that don't get set. Reading from userspace solves both issues. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
