netdev - Re: [PATCH 10/18] nvme-tcp: fixup send workflow for kTLS

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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 07:59:46 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        kernel-tls-handshake@...ts.linux.dev,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nvme-tcp: fixup send workflow for kTLS

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:20:13 +0300 Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >> Some of the flags are call specific, others may be internal to the
> >> networking stack (e.g. the DECRYPTED flag). Old protocols didn't do
> >> any validation because people coded more haphazardly in the 90s.
> >> This lack of validation is a major source of technical debt :(  
> > 
> > A-ha. So what is the plan?
> > Should the stack validate flags?
> > And should the rules for validating be the same for all protocols?  
> 
> MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST is not an internal flag, I thought it was
> essentially similar semantics to MSG_MORE but for sendpage. It'd
> be great if this can be allowed in tls (again, at the very least
> don't fail but continue as if it wasn't passed).

.. but.. MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST is supported in TLS, isn't it?
Why are we talking about it?