LVS
lvs-devel
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: get rid of the address_space override in setsockopt

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: get rid of the address_space override in setsockopt
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sctp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-bluetooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dccp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-decnet-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-wpan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mptcp@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rds-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tipc-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-x25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 13:47:56 -0700
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?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>