Re: remove kernel_setsockopt and kernel_getsockopt v2

['Christoph Hellwig' <hch@lst.de>]

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:01:33AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> How much does this increase the kernel code by?

 44 files changed, 660 insertions(+), 843 deletions(-)


> You are also replicating a lot of code making it more
> difficult to maintain.

No, I specifically don't.

> I don't think the performance of an socket option code
> really matters - it is usually done once when a socket
> is initialised and the other costs of establishing a
> connection will dominate.
> 
> Pulling the user copies outside the [gs]etsocksopt switch
> statement not only reduces the code size (source and object)
> and trivially allows kernel_[sg]sockopt() to me added to
> the list of socket calls.
> 
> It probably isn't possible to pull the usercopies right
> out into the syscall wrapper because of some broken
> requests.

Please read through the previous discussion of the rationale and the
options.  We've been there before.

> I worried about whether getsockopt() should read the entire
> user buffer first. SCTP needs the some of it often (including a
> sockaddr_storage in one case), TCP needs it once.
> However the cost of reading a few words is small, and a big
> buffer probably needs setting to avoid leaking kernel
> memory if the structure has holes or fields that don't get set.
> Reading from userspace solves both issues.

As mention in the thread on the last series:  That was my first idea, but
we have way to many sockopts, especially in obscure protocols that just
hard code the size.  The chance of breaking userspace in a way that can't
be fixed without going back to passing user pointers to get/setsockopt
is way to high to commit to such a change unfortunately.

_______________________________________________
linux-nvme mailing list
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme