Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] net/io_uring: pass a kernel pointer via optlen_t to proto[_ops].getsockopt()
Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]> Tue, 1 Apr 2025 15:48:58 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization,gmane.linux.network,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.hams,gmane.linux.bluez.kernel,gmane.linux.can,gmane.linux.drivers.rdma,gmane.network.tipc.general,gmane.linux.x25,gmane.linux.kernel.bpf,gmane.linux.isdn.i4l.user,gmane.linux.kernel.io-uring |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 01.04.25 um 15:37 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher: > Am 01.04.25 um 10:19 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher: >> Am 31.03.25 um 23:04 schrieb Stanislav Fomichev: >>> On 03/31, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: >>>> The motivation for this is to remove the SOL_SOCKET limitation >>>> from io_uring_cmd_getsockopt(). >>>> >>>> The reason for this limitation is that io_uring_cmd_getsockopt() >>>> passes a kernel pointer as optlen to do_sock_getsockopt() >>>> and can't reach the ops->getsockopt() path. >>>> >>>> The first idea would be to change the optval and optlen arguments >>>> to the protocol specific hooks also to sockptr_t, as that >>>> is already used for setsockopt() and also by do_sock_getsockopt() >>>> sk_getsockopt() and BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT(). >>>> >>>> But as Linus don't like 'sockptr_t' I used a different approach. >>>> >>>> @Linus, would that optlen_t approach fit better for you? >>> >>> [..] >>> >>>> Instead of passing the optlen as user or kernel pointer, >>>> we only ever pass a kernel pointer and do the >>>> translation from/to userspace in do_sock_getsockopt(). >>> >>> At this point why not just fully embrace iov_iter? You have the size >>> now + the user (or kernel) pointer. Might as well do >>> s/sockptr_t/iov_iter/ conversion? >> >> I think that would only be possible if we introduce >> proto[_ops].getsockopt_iter() and then convert the implementations >> step by step. Doing it all in one go has a lot of potential to break >> the uapi. I could try to convert things like socket, ip and tcp myself, but >> the rest needs to be converted by the maintainer of the specific protocol, >> as it needs to be tested. As there are crazy things happening in the existing >> implementations, e.g. some getsockopt() implementations use optval as in and out >> buffer. >> >> I first tried to convert both optval and optlen of getsockopt to sockptr_t, >> and that showed that touching the optval part starts to get complex very soon, >> see https://git.samba.org/?p=metze/linux/wip.git;a=commitdiff;h=141912166473bf8843ec6ace76dc9c6945adafd1 >> (note it didn't converted everything, I gave up after hitting >> sctp_getsockopt_peer_addrs and sctp_getsockopt_local_addrs. >> sctp_getsockopt_context, sctp_getsockopt_maxseg, sctp_getsockopt_associnfo and maybe >> more are the ones also doing both copy_from_user and copy_to_user on optval) >> >> I come also across one implementation that returned -ERANGE because *optlen was >> too short and put the required length into *optlen, which means the returned >> *optlen is larger than the optval buffer given from userspace. >> >> Because of all these strange things I tried to do a minimal change >> in order to get rid of the io_uring limitation and only converted >> optlen and leave optval as is. >> >> In order to have a patchset that has a low risk to cause regressions. >> >> But as alternative introducing a prototype like this: >> >> int (*getsockopt_iter)(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, >> struct iov_iter *optval_iter); >> >> That returns a non-negative value which can be placed into *optlen >> or negative value as error and *optlen will not be changed on error. >> optval_iter will get direction ITER_DEST, so it can only be written to. >> >> Implementations could then opt in for the new interface and >> allow do_sock_getsockopt() work also for the io_uring case, >> while all others would still get -EOPNOTSUPP. >> >> So what should be the way to go? > > Ok, I've added the infrastructure for getsockopt_iter, see below, > but the first part I wanted to convert was > tcp_ao_copy_mkts_to_user() and that also reads from userspace before > writing. > > So we could go with the optlen_t approach, or we need > logic for ITER_BOTH or pass two iov_iters one with ITER_SRC and one > with ITER_DEST... > > So who wants to decide? I just noticed that it's even possible in same cases to pass in a short buffer to optval, but have a longer value in optlen, hci_sock_getsockopt() with SOL_BLUETOOTH completely ignores optlen. This makes it really hard to believe that trying to use iov_iter for this is a good idea :-( Any ideas beside just going with optlen_t? metze