From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 690038BEB for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCDBBC433EF; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:10:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1681762249; bh=hIoqtNRBOGqTpc2RXSotxVJwjNrNbGDsm8P+77+YGjs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=s6n+OO6M2Buc2XhqNeHM9gtugguD0WMhzMR779U2rIiUJX+CLJfs1kAsCMJYqORdz pFC3FlpRfJBoAtYKyzu/Lc5MSdWT+tfxOonv6LB5366/+yDQrS7rAfk8i3OhYpXzQJ U7pMLWRLSDNQkqq1ETPfNYrkMLh32jwuU/A5/0er0pWrH5eD5vLUi14RoNSX1VuSOP oLVB4bvRpJMiDwqQEOF+YTJhUR0jJIibq30vJV0Zr0JmZKEIyp3m+NYXvvOsxfuSET M2BezGuy7txhuosl/X89Go2OeFa4228IDD5jbt8jiSDygnHgYcwWfOUBjrnrMzolmX aqh7glmhUt4Kg== Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 13:10:48 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: Hannes Reinecke , Christoph Hellwig , Keith Busch , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Chuck Lever , kernel-tls-handshake@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] net/tls: sanitize MSG_EOR handling Message-ID: <20230417131048.66b6b3a0@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20af9713-8d64-77de-dfbe-e9e732776d3c@grimberg.me> References: <20230417130302.86274-1-hare@suse.de> <20230417130302.86274-8-hare@suse.de> <20af9713-8d64-77de-dfbe-e9e732776d3c@grimberg.me> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kernel-tls-handshake@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:19:12 +0300 Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > The TLS stack is using MSG_EOR internally, so the flag cannot be > > set for sendmsg()/sendpage(). But to avoid having the caller to > > check whether TLS is active modify the code to clear the MSG_EOR > > flag. And blank out MSG_MORE / MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST, too, as they > > conflict with MSG_EOR anyway. > > This looks like a temporary workaround to me. > > The networking folks really need to be CC'd on this (same for patch 6). Thanks, when I said "we can support EOR" I obviously meant support not ignore it :( No ack.