Hello Stanislav,

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 10:02:40AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:

On 07/25, Breno Leitao wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:31:28AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:

quoted

On 07/24, Breno Leitao wrote:

quoted

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?

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.

I spent smoe time looking at the problem, and I understand we want to
call something as BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_{G,S}ETSOCKOPT() into
io_uring_cmd_{g,s}etsockopt().

Per the previous conversation with Williem,
io_uring_cmd_{g,s}etsockopt() should use optval as a user pointer (void __user
*optval), and optlen as a kernel integer (it comes as from the io_uring
SQE), such as:

	void __user *optval = u64_to_user_ptr(READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->optval));
	int optlen = READ_ONCE(cmd->sqe->optlen);

Function BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT() calls
__cgroup_bpf_run_filter_getsockopt() which expects userpointer for
optlen and optval.

At the same time BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT_KERN() expects kernel
pointers for both optlen and optval.

In this current patchset, it has user pointer for optval and kernel value
for optlen. I.e., a third combination.  So, none of the functions would
work properly, and we probably do not want to create another function.

I am wondering if it is a good idea to move
__cgroup_bpf_run_filter_getsockopt() to use sockptr_t, so, it will be
able to adapt to any combination.

Any feedback is appreciate.
Thanks!