| Message ID | d3973f5b-2d86-665d-a5f3-95d017f9c79f@kernel.dk |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| 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 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.
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.