netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/4] net/tls: handle MSG_EOR for tls

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: <f560c8fa-d6a1-7bd2-3fd7-728f90207322@grimberg.me>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:58:10 +0300
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] net/tls: handle MSG_EOR for tls_device TX flow



On 6/12/23 17:38, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> tls_push_data() MSG_MORE / MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST, but bails
> out on MSG_EOR.
> But seeing that MSG_EOR is basically the opposite of
> MSG_MORE / MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST this patch adds handling
> MSG_EOR by treating it as the absence of MSG_MORE.
> Consequently we should return an error when both are set.
> 
> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
> ---
>   net/tls/tls_device.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/tls/tls_device.c b/net/tls/tls_device.c
> index a7cc4f9faac2..0024febd40de 100644
> --- a/net/tls/tls_device.c
> +++ b/net/tls/tls_device.c
> @@ -448,10 +448,6 @@ static int tls_push_data(struct sock *sk,
>   	int copy, rc = 0;
>   	long timeo;
>   
> -	if (flags &
> -	    ~(MSG_MORE | MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_NOSIGNAL | MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST))
> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
>   	if (unlikely(sk->sk_err))
>   		return -sk->sk_err;
>   
> @@ -529,6 +525,10 @@ static int tls_push_data(struct sock *sk,
>   				more = true;
>   				break;
>   			}
> +			if (flags & MSG_EOR) {
> +				more = false;
> +				break;
> +			}
>   
>   			done = true;
>   		}
> @@ -573,6 +573,14 @@ int tls_device_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
>   	union tls_iter_offset iter;
>   	int rc;
>   
> +	if (msg->msg_flags &
> +	    ~(MSG_MORE | MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_NOSIGNAL | MSG_EOR))
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	if ((msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE) &&
> +	    (msg->msg_flags & MSG_EOR))
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

EINVAL is more appropriate I think...

> +
>   	mutex_lock(&tls_ctx->tx_lock);
>   	lock_sock(sk);
>   
> @@ -601,9 +609,17 @@ int tls_device_sendpage(struct sock *sk, struct page *page,
>   	struct kvec iov;
>   	int rc;
>   
> +	if (flags &
> +	    ~(MSG_MORE | MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_NOSIGNAL | MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST | MSG_EOR))
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
>   	if (flags & MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST)
>   		flags |= MSG_MORE;
>   
> +	if ((flags & MSG_MORE) &&
> +	    (flags & MSG_EOR))
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

EINVAL?