Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/4] net: call getsockopt_iter if available

From: Breno Leitao

Date: Thu Apr 02 2026 - 11:43:03 EST


Hello Stanislav,

On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 11:10:22AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> So maybe something like this is better to communicate your long term intent?
>
> } else if (ops->getsockopt_iter) {
> optval = sockptr_to_iter(optval)
> optlen = sockptr_to_iter(optlen)
> do_sock_getsockopt_iter(...) /* does not know what sockpt_t is */
> }
>
> ?
>
> Then your new do_sock_getsockopt_iter is sockptr-free from the beginning
> and at some point we'll just drop/move those sockptr_to_iter calls?

Sure, that would work as well. It would look like the following, from my
current implemention:

+static int sockptr_to_sockopt(sockopt_t *opt, sockptr_t optval,
+ sockptr_t optlen, struct kvec *kvec)
+{
+ int koptlen;
+
+ if (copy_from_sockptr(&koptlen, optlen, sizeof(int)))
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ if (optval.is_kernel) {
+ kvec->iov_base = optval.kernel;
+ kvec->iov_len = koptlen;
+ iov_iter_kvec(&opt->iter_out, ITER_DEST, kvec, 1, koptlen);
+ iov_iter_kvec(&opt->iter_in, ITER_SOURCE, kvec, 1, koptlen);
+ } else {
+ iov_iter_ubuf(&opt->iter_out, ITER_DEST, optval.user, koptlen);
+ iov_iter_ubuf(&opt->iter_in, ITER_SOURCE, optval.user,
+ koptlen);
+ }
+ opt->optlen = koptlen;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
int do_sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, bool compat, int level,
int optname, sockptr_t optval, sockptr_t optlen)
{
@@ -2366,15 +2390,31 @@ int do_sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, bool compat, int level,

+ } else if (ops->getsockopt_iter) {
+ struct kvec kvec;
+ sockopt_t opt;
+
+ err = sockptr_to_sockopt(&opt, optval, optlen, &kvec);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ err = ops->getsockopt_iter(sock, level, optname, &opt);
+
+ /* Always write back optlen, even on failure. Some protocols
+ * (e.g. CAN raw) return -ERANGE and set optlen to the
+ * required buffer size so userspace can discover it.
+ */
+ if (copy_to_sockptr(optlen, &opt.optlen, sizeof(int)))
+ return -EFAULT;
+ } else if (ops->getsockopt) {
....

> I hope this way it will be easier to review protocol handler changes.
>
> For example, looking at your AF_PACKET patch, you won't have to care
> about flipping the source and doing the revert. Most/all of the changes will
> be simple:
> - s/get_user(len, optlen)/len = opt->optlen/
> - s/put_user(len, optlen)/opt->optlen = len/
> - s/copy_from_user(xxx, optval, len)/copy_from_iter(xxx, len, &opt->iter_in)/
> - s/copy_to_user(optval, xxx, len)/copy_to_iter(xxx, len, &opt->iter_out)/

That is, in fact, a great proposal. It will make the protocol changes review
way easier.

This is what I have right now.

typedef struct sockopt {
struct iov_iter iter_out;
struct iov_iter iter_in;
int optlen;
} sockopt_t;


And then, the drivers change would be as simple as:

static int packet_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
- char __user *optval, int __user *optlen)
+ sockopt_t *opt)
{
int len;
int val, lv = sizeof(val);
@@ -4065,8 +4066,7 @@ static int packet_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
if (level != SOL_PACKET)
return -ENOPROTOOPT;

- if (get_user(len, optlen))
- return -EFAULT;
+ len = opt->optlen;

if (len < 0)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -4115,7 +4115,7 @@ static int packet_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
len = sizeof(int);
if (len < sizeof(int))
return -EINVAL;
- if (copy_from_user(&val, optval, len))
+ if (copy_from_iter(&val, len, &opt->iter_in) != len)
return -EFAULT;
switch (val) {
case TPACKET_V1:
@@ -4171,9 +4171,8 @@ static int packet_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,

if (len > lv)
len = lv;
- if (put_user(len, optlen))
- return -EFAULT;
- if (copy_to_user(optval, data, len))
+ opt->optlen = len;
+ if (copy_to_iter(data, len, &opt->iter_out) != len)
return -EFAULT;
return 0;

This is not fully tested yet, but, in case you want to see how this looks like
so far, I have it in https://github.com/leitao/linux/tree/b4/getsockopt_v3.

I will submit a newer version after I am done with the testing.

Thanks for the insights,
--breno