Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:56:23 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] io_uring/cmd: Introduce SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT | From | Martin KaFai Lau <> |
| |
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.
| |