[PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Jens Axboe]

No functional changes in this patch, needed to provide io_uring support
for shutdown(2).

Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

---

There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
5.10.

diff --git a/include/linux/socket.h b/include/linux/socket.h
index e9cb30d8cbfb..385894b4a8bb 100644
--- a/include/linux/socket.h
+++ b/include/linux/socket.h
@@ -436,6 +436,7 @@ extern int __sys_getpeername(int fd, struct sockaddr __user *usockaddr,
 			     int __user *usockaddr_len);
 extern int __sys_socketpair(int family, int type, int protocol,
 			    int __user *usockvec);
+extern int __sys_shutdown_sock(struct socket *sock, int how);
 extern int __sys_shutdown(int fd, int how);
 
 extern struct ns_common *get_net_ns(struct ns_common *ns);
diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
index dbbe8ea7d395..59307db6097e 100644
--- a/net/socket.c
+++ b/net/socket.c
@@ -2192,6 +2192,17 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(getsockopt, int, fd, int, level, int, optname,
  *	Shutdown a socket.
  */
 
+int __sys_shutdown_sock(struct socket *sock, int how)
+{
+	int err;
+
+	err = security_socket_shutdown(sock, how);
+	if (!err)
+		err = sock->ops->shutdown(sock, how);
+
+	return err;
+}
+
 int __sys_shutdown(int fd, int how)
 {
 	int err, fput_needed;
@@ -2199,9 +2210,7 @@ int __sys_shutdown(int fd, int how)
 
 	sock = sockfd_lookup_light(fd, &err, &fput_needed);
 	if (sock != NULL) {
-		err = security_socket_shutdown(sock, how);
-		if (!err)
-			err = sock->ops->shutdown(sock, how);
+		err = __sys_shutdown_sock(sock, how);
 		fput_light(sock->file, fput_needed);
 	}
 	return err;

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 16:05:48 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
> No functional changes in this patch, needed to provide io_uring support
> for shutdown(2).
> 
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> 
> ---
> 
> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
> 5.10.

Go for it.

Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/5/20 4:39 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 16:05:48 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>> No functional changes in this patch, needed to provide io_uring support
>> for shutdown(2).
>>
>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
>> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
>> 5.10.
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

Thanks! Added your Acked-by.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 04:05:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
> 5.10.

Can you give it a better name?  These __ names re just horrible.
sock_shutdown_sock?

Re: [PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/6/20 11:48 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 04:05:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
>> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
>> 5.10.
> 
> Can you give it a better name?  These __ names re just horrible.
> sock_shutdown_sock?

Sure, I don't really care, just following what is mostly done already. And
it is meant to be internal in the sense that it's not exported to modules.

I'll let the net guys pass the final judgement on that, I'm obviously fine
with anything in terms of naming :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:45:00 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/6/20 11:48 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 04:05:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:  
> >> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
> >> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
> >> 5.10.  
> > 
> > Can you give it a better name?  These __ names re just horrible.
> > sock_shutdown_sock?  
> 
> Sure, I don't really care, just following what is mostly done already. And
> it is meant to be internal in the sense that it's not exported to modules.
> 
> I'll let the net guys pass the final judgement on that, I'm obviously fine
> with anything in terms of naming :-)

So am I :) But if Christoph prefers sock_shutdown_sock() let's use that.

Re: [PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 09:58:13AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:45:00 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 9/6/20 11:48 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 04:05:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:  
> > >> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
> > >> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
> > >> 5.10.  
> > > 
> > > Can you give it a better name?  These __ names re just horrible.
> > > sock_shutdown_sock?  
> > 
> > Sure, I don't really care, just following what is mostly done already. And
> > it is meant to be internal in the sense that it's not exported to modules.
> > 
> > I'll let the net guys pass the final judgement on that, I'm obviously fine
> > with anything in terms of naming :-)
> 
> So am I :) But if Christoph prefers sock_shutdown_sock() let's use that.

Let's go with the original naming.  I might eventually do a big
naming sweep in socket.c after cleaning up more of the compat mess.

Re: [PATCH for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/7/20 11:00 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 09:58:13AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:45:00 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 9/6/20 11:48 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 04:05:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:  
>>>>> There's a trivial io_uring patch that depends on this one. If this one
>>>>> is acceptable to you, I'd like to queue it up in the io_uring branch for
>>>>> 5.10.  
>>>>
>>>> Can you give it a better name?  These __ names re just horrible.
>>>> sock_shutdown_sock?  
>>>
>>> Sure, I don't really care, just following what is mostly done already. And
>>> it is meant to be internal in the sense that it's not exported to modules.
>>>
>>> I'll let the net guys pass the final judgement on that, I'm obviously fine
>>> with anything in terms of naming :-)
>>
>> So am I :) But if Christoph prefers sock_shutdown_sock() let's use that.
> 
> Let's go with the original naming.  I might eventually do a big
> naming sweep in socket.c after cleaning up more of the compat mess.

Agree, saves me the hassle... FWIW, networking does have an even broader
space of func to __func to ____func and in some cases not "following" the
usual calling order of them.

-- 
Jens Axboe