Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands

From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
	sdf@google.com, asml.silence@gmail.com,
	willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
	martin.lau@linux.dev, krisman@suse.de, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:40:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <11debbc9-de33-4466-a997-c8f49d27fd18@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231019083305.6d309f82@kernel.org>

On 10/19/23 9:33 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:58:59 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/16/23 7:47 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
>>> This patchset adds support for getsockopt (SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT)
>>> and setsockopt (SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT) in io_uring commands.
>>> SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT implements generic case, covering all levels
>>> and optnames. SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT is limited, for now, to
>>> SOL_SOCKET level, which seems to be the most common level parameter for
>>> get/setsockopt(2).
>>>
>>> In order to keep the implementation (and tests) simple, some refactors
>>> were done prior to the changes, as follows:  
>>
>> Looks like folks are mostly happy with this now, so the next question is
>> how to stage it?
> 
> Would be good to get acks from BPF folks but AFAICT first four patches

Agree, those are still missing. BPF folks, do patches 1-2 look OK to
you?

> apply cleanly for us now. If they apply cleanly for you I reckon you
> can take them directly with io-uring. It's -rc7 time, with a bit of
> luck we'll get to the merge window without a conflict.

I'll tentatively setup a branch for this just to see if we run into
anything on the merge front. Depending on how the BPF side goes, I can
rebase/collect reviews/whatever as we go.

-- 
Jens Axboe