| Message ID | d3973f5b-2d86-665d-a5f3-95d017f9c79f@kernel.dk |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [for-next] net: provide __sys_shutdown_sock() that takes a socket | expand |
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>
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.
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?
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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.