netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] tls: rx: don't consider sock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e70b924a0a2ef69c4744a23862258ebb23b60907.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:50:03 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, borisp@...dia.com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, maximmi@...dia.com, tariqt@...dia.com,
        vfedorenko@...ek.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] tls: rx: don't consider sock_rcvtimeo()
 cumulative

On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 20:15 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Eric indicates that restarting rcvtimeo on every wait may be fine.
> I thought that we should consider it cumulative, and made
> tls_rx_reader_lock() return the remaining timeo after acquiring
> the reader lock.
> 
> tls_rx_rec_wait() gets its timeout passed in by value so it
> does not keep track of time previously spent.
> 
> Make the lock waiting consistent with tls_rx_rec_wait() - don't
> keep track of time spent.
> 
> Read the timeo fresh in tls_rx_rec_wait().
> It's unclear to me why callers are supposed to cache the value.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CANn89iKcmSfWgvZjzNGbsrndmCch2HC_EPZ7qmGboDNaWoviNQ@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>

I have a possibly dumb question: this patch seems to introduce a change
of behavior (timeo re-arming after every progress vs a comulative one),
while re-reading the thread linked above it I (mis?)understand that the
timeo re-arming is the current behavior?

Could you please clarify/help me understand this better?

Thanks!

Paolo