On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:01:33AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > How much does this increase the kernel code by? 44 files changed, 660 insertions(+), 843 deletions(-) > You are also replicating a lot of code making it more > difficult to maintain. No, I specifically don't. > 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. Please read through the previous discussion of the rationale and the options. We've been there before. > 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. As mention in the thread on the last series: That was my first idea, but we have way to many sockopts, especially in obscure protocols that just hard code the size. The chance of breaking userspace in a way that can't be fixed without going back to passing user pointers to get/setsockopt is way to high to commit to such a change unfortunately.
