From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>
To: Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>
Cc: john.fastabend@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-tls-handshake@lists.linux.dev,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] tls: Factor tls_decrypt_async_drain() from recvmsg
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 11:13:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <abfX5FOJRaIMkjTi@krikkit> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260312014804.5083-2-cel@kernel.org>
2026-03-11, 21:47:57 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
>
> The recvmsg path pairs tls_decrypt_async_wait() with
> __skb_queue_purge(&ctx->async_hold). Bundling the two into
> tls_decrypt_async_drain() gives later patches a single call for
> async teardown.
I was wondering if tls_decrypt_async_wait() without
__skb_queue_purge() is ever the right thing. Once we've waited for all
pending decryptions, async_hold's job is done, we don't need to keep
all that memory around anymore.
Should we just move recvmsg's __skb_queue_purge() into
tls_decrypt_async_wait()?
--
Sabrina
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-16 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-12 1:47 [PATCH v3 0/8] TLS read_sock performance scalability Chuck Lever
2026-03-12 1:47 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] tls: Factor tls_decrypt_async_drain() from recvmsg Chuck Lever
2026-03-12 4:34 ` Alistair Francis
2026-03-16 10:13 ` Sabrina Dubroca [this message]
2026-03-12 1:47 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] tls: Factor tls_rx_decrypt_record() helper Chuck Lever
2026-03-12 4:35 ` Alistair Francis
2026-03-16 10:20 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2026-03-17 7:06 ` Hannes Reinecke
2026-03-12 1:47 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] tls: Fix dangling skb pointer in tls_sw_read_sock() Chuck Lever
2026-03-12 1:48 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] tls: Factor tls_strp_msg_release() from tls_strp_msg_done() Chuck Lever
2026-03-12 1:48 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] tls: Suppress spurious saved_data_ready on all receive paths Chuck Lever
2026-03-12 1:48 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] tls: Flush backlog before tls_rx_rec_wait in read_sock Chuck Lever
2026-03-16 17:17 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2026-03-12 1:48 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] tls: Restructure tls_sw_read_sock() into submit/deliver phases Chuck Lever
2026-03-12 1:48 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] tls: Enable batch async decryption in read_sock Chuck Lever
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=abfX5FOJRaIMkjTi@krikkit \
--to=sd@queasysnail.net \
--cc=cel@kernel.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-tls-handshake@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.