[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3a83032-8ed4-4d5d-9df9-6dbd02acac1c@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:45:56 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
horms@...nel.org, borisp@...dia.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
shuah@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, sd@...asysnail.net,
will@...lsroot.io, savy@...t3mfailure.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] tls: handle data disappearing from under the
TLS ULP
On 8/8/25 1:29 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> diff --git a/net/tls/tls_sw.c b/net/tls/tls_sw.c
> index 549d1ea01a72..51c98a007dda 100644
> --- a/net/tls/tls_sw.c
> +++ b/net/tls/tls_sw.c
> @@ -1384,7 +1384,8 @@ tls_rx_rec_wait(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock, bool nonblock,
> return sock_intr_errno(timeo);
> }
>
> - tls_strp_msg_load(&ctx->strp, released);
> + if (unlikely(!tls_strp_msg_load(&ctx->strp, released)))
> + return tls_rx_rec_wait(sk, psock, nonblock, false);
I'm probably missing something relevant, but I don't see anything
preventing the above recursion from going very deep and cause stack
overflow.
Perhaps something alike:
released = false;
goto <function start>
would be safer?
/P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists