Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 12/15] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024, at 03:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
> --- a/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
> +++ b/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
>  #define SO_PEERPIDFD		77
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_LINEAR	79
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_DMABUF	80
> --- a/arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
> +++ b/arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
>  #define SO_PEERPIDFD		77
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_LINEAR	79
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_DMABUF	80
> --- a/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
> +++ b/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
>  #define SO_PEERPIDFD		0x404B
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_LINEAR	98
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_DMABUF	99
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/socket.h
>  #define SO_PEERPIDFD             0x0056
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_LINEAR         0x0058
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_DMABUF         0x0059
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/socket.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/socket.h
> @@ -135,6 +135,11 @@
>  #define SO_PEERPIDFD		77
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_LINEAR	98
> +#define SO_DEVMEM_DMABUF	99

These look inconsistent. I can see how you picked the
alpha and mips numbers, but how did you come up with
the generic and parisc ones? Can you follow the existing
scheme instead?

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/uio.h b/include/uapi/linux/uio.h
> index 059b1a9147f4..ad92e37699da 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/uio.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/uio.h
> @@ -20,6 +20,16 @@ struct iovec
>  	__kernel_size_t iov_len; /* Must be size_t (1003.1g) */
>  };
> 
> +struct dmabuf_cmsg {
> +	__u64 frag_offset;	/* offset into the dmabuf where the frag starts.
> +				 */
> +	__u32 frag_size;	/* size of the frag. */
> +	__u32 frag_token;	/* token representing this frag for
> +				 * DEVMEM_DONTNEED.
> +				 */
> +	__u32  dmabuf_id;	/* dmabuf id this frag belongs to. */
> +};

This structure requires a special compat handler to run
x86-32 binaries on x86-64 because of the different alignment
requirements. Any uapi-visible structures should be defined
to avoid this and just have no holes in them. Maybe extend
one of the __u32 members to __u64 or add another 32-bit padding field?

       Arnd