[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200826141907.GA5111@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 00:19:08 +1000
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Denis Kenzior <denkenz@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Zaborowski <andrew.zaborowski@...el.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
Caleb Jorden <caljorden@...mail.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, iwd@...ts.01.org,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Issue with iwd + Linux 5.8.3 + WPA Enterprise
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 08:57:17AM -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote:
>
> I'm just waking up now, so I might seem dense, but for my education, can you
> tell me why we need to set MSG_MORE when we issue just a single sendmsg
> followed immediately by recv/recvmsg? ell/iwd operates on small buffers, so
> we don't really feed the kernel data in multiple send operations. You can
> see this in the ell git tree link referenced in Andrew's reply.
You obviously don't need MSG_MORE if you're doing a single sendmsg.
The problematic code is in l_cipher_set_iv. It does a sendmsg(2)
that expects to be followed by more sendmsg(2) calls before a
recvmsg(2). That's the one that needs a MSG_MORE.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists