netdev - Re: [PATCH net 3/5] tls: don't skip over different type records from the rx

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: <ZdZEHTbRF_8aVzmu@hog>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 19:42:37 +0100
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/5] tls: don't skip over different type records from
 the rx_list

2024-02-21, 10:33:30 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:59:40 +0100 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > It's not exactly enough, since tls_record_content_type will return 0
> > on a content type mismatch. We'll have to translate that into an
> > "error". 
> 
> Ugh, that's unpleasant.
> 
> > I think it would be a bit nicer to set err=1 and then check
> > err != 0 in tls_sw_recvmsg (we can document that in a comment above
> > process_rx_list) rather than making up a fake errno. See diff [1].
> > 
> > Or we could swap the 0/1 returns from tls_record_content_type and
> > switch the err <= 0 tests to err != 0 after the existing calls, then
> > process_rx_list doesn't have a weird special case [2].
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I missed the error = 1 case, sorry. No strong preference, then.
> Checking for error = 1 will be as special as the new rx_more
> flag. Should I apply this version as is, then?

If you're ok with that version, sure. Thanks.

-- 
Sabrina