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]

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 19:12:31 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] net/tls: handle MSG_EOR for tls_device TX flow

2023-06-20, 12:28:54 +0200, 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 | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/tls/tls_device.c b/net/tls/tls_device.c
> index b82770f68807..ebefd148ecf5 100644
> --- a/net/tls/tls_device.c
> +++ b/net/tls/tls_device.c
> @@ -440,11 +440,6 @@ 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 |
> -	      MSG_SPLICE_PAGES))
> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
>  	if (unlikely(sk->sk_err))
>  		return -sk->sk_err;
>  
> @@ -536,6 +531,10 @@ static int tls_push_data(struct sock *sk,
>  				more = true;
>  				break;
>  			}
> +			if (flags & MSG_EOR) {
> +				more = false;
> +				break;

Why the break here? We don't want to close and push the record in that
case? (the "if (done || ...)" block just below)


> +			}
>  
>  			done = true;
>  		}

Thanks,

-- 
Sabrina