Re: [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring_cmd support for sockets

[Willem de Bruijn]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/11/23 8:51?AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 4/11/23 8:36?AM, David Ahern wrote:
> >>> On 4/11/23 6:00 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> >>>> I am not sure if avoiding io_uring details in network code is possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> The "struct proto"->uring_cmd callback implementation (tcp_uring_cmd()
> >>>> in the TCP case) could be somewhere else, such as in the io_uring/
> >>>> directory, but, I think it might be cleaner if these implementations are
> >>>> closer to function assignment (in the network subsystem).
> >>>>
> >>>> And this function (tcp_uring_cmd() for instance) is the one that I am
> >>>> planning to map io_uring CMDs to ioctls. Such as SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ
> >>>> -> SIOCINQ.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please let me know if you have any other idea in mind.
> >>>
> >>> I am not convinced that this io_uring_cmd is needed. This is one
> >>> in-kernel subsystem calling into another, and there are APIs for that.
> >>> All of this set is ioctl based and as Willem noted a little refactoring
> >>> separates the get_user/put_user out so that in-kernel can call can be
> >>> made with existing ops.
> >>
> >> How do you want to wire it up then? We can't use fops->unlocked_ioctl()
> >> obviously, and we already have ->uring_cmd() for this purpose.
> > 
> > Does this suggestion not work?
> 
> Not sure I follow, what suggestion?
>

This quote from earlier in the thread:

I was thinking just having sock_uring_cmd call sock->ops->ioctl, like
sock_do_ioctl.
> >  
> >> I do think the right thing to do is have a common helper that returns
> >> whatever value you want (or sets it), and split the ioctl parts into a
> >> wrapper around that that simply copies in/out as needed. Then
> >> ->uring_cmd() could call that, or you could some exported function that
> >> does supports that.
> >>
> >> This works for the basic cases, though I do suspect we'll want to go
> >> down the ->uring_cmd() at some point for more advanced cases or cases
> >> that cannot sanely be done in an ioctl fashion.
> > 
> > Right now the two examples are ioctls that return an integer. Do you 
> > already have other calls in mind? That would help estimate whether
> > ->uring_cmd() indeed will be needed and we might as well do it now.
> 
> Right, it's a proof of concept. But we'd want to support anything that
> setsockopt/getsockopt would do. This is necessary so that direct
> descriptors (eg ones that describe a struct file that isn't in the
> process file table or have a regular fd) can be used for anything that a
> regular file can. Beyond that, perhaps various things necessary for
> efficient zero copy rx.
> 
> I do think we can make the ->uring_cmd() hookup a bit more palatable in
> terms of API. It really should be just a sub-opcode and then arguments
> to support that. The grunt of the work is really refactoring the ioctl
> and set/getsockopt bits so that they can be called in-kernel rather than
> assuming copy in/out is needed. Once that is done, the actual uring_cmd
> hookup should be simple and trivial.

That sounds like what I proposed above. That suggestion was only for
the narrow case where ioctls return an integer. The general approach
has to handle any put_user.

Though my initial skim of TCP, UDP and RAW did not bring up any other
forms.

getsockopt indeed has plenty of examples, such as receive zerocopy.