From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 E13A43C3F41; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 21:35:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785447358; cv=none; b=rGM8UGj9aTDhdEcyVQ4keujLukYB2HvxC1c20ooJbHsn8yAiqwhZI1Hcb4YAde1gSWMJgliwizsuVpXR1m83XcYYCmXMzeiBdMj/iPuLtz0MgEl4hByM8cKsFN8cdWPVr5/lMj+G6u1CiqjaaJ9medbPPhoKE3VGg4cTny9J6zU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785447358; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hmbJwvv+QHJ2/b0lqV0NNCRelbFPAL1DmeomnFkAZPw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PNt+j0oWMRqrWO5Uw93e729/ULV2DVDdG8ojOFOCB90CYh2tQ0CXGE0QipOKUbtP8z2wZXDApvR0/MKfwWUm7R9WVIMywmfWP+YB0fk3xSDRCQv9w2aJDbUxtYAac0WoNdtrufJ+5cWwqZekPGnH4agsX53muCGCbbksI0fnMM8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=S1WazX2n; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="S1WazX2n" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98A921F000E9; Thu, 30 Jul 2026 21:35:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785447357; bh=hmbJwvv+QHJ2/b0lqV0NNCRelbFPAL1DmeomnFkAZPw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=S1WazX2ne1KdpkwWes3A2jNnXPqOLM8XZ8JF9ymxYz0hNmskk1pnuysL1UZ+g8h7E FW2mFjjJqxpqalABdPr2XTh16dAYYs2/TNAb86VBfqvr7lYQOmeM9SIR2xQuKW/so+ 2FcIpudgAQ/I7A9Qh26qtBzJLCdev7a8BtB2XvDWNOlvadrrmPfWoneSJFTW3FYMW9 MioDklS89c6OrbSYRxSlgpGbjYenDrmOghULzqXqD9yZDNARBdP1EX6E/JPAYUuekr YxqAynPm9A9nVqhDa70KeJES4C/U5ohWdm+FiRQlArAXk7d+015cOR3FocjjueQhcF rKzNPKjJZvxfQ== Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 14:35:56 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Sabrina Dubroca Cc: Chuck Lever , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , John Fastabend , Shuah Khan , Jeff Layton , NeilBrown , Olga Kornievskaia , Dai Ngo , Tom Talpey , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-tls-handshake@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] net: Introduce read_sock_rectype proto_ops for control record delivery Message-ID: <20260730143556.4a8463fd@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20260720-tcp-read-sock-v2-0-29545d034f3c@kernel.org> <20260720-tcp-read-sock-v2-2-29545d034f3c@kernel.org> <20260728185124.72e421c8@kernel.org> <480a8337-a91e-40e5-8dbd-d165599fba4b@app.fastmail.com> <20260728193058.7f6b453b@kernel.org> <20260729163142.4f41484f@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 16:16:33 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > 2026-07-29, 16:31:42 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 22:51:30 -0400 Chuck Lever wrote: =20 > > > No-one is asking you to roll over. Review means you get to steer > > > us in the right direction, and I promise to do the leg work. Terse > > > rejection doesn=E2=80=99t move the discussion forward. It stops it co= ld. =20 > >=20 > > With LLMs tho, the entire human effort is in finding the right design, > > rather than the code. So asking maintainers to hand hold everyone thru > > their features is unrealistic. > >=20 > > Off the top of my head I think a setsockopt which pre-seeds the content > > type so that the read returns an errno if the queued content type is > > different could be a simple fix. You'd configure that on your sockets > > to DATA and once you see a EWHATEVER you'd assume that some special > > record arrived and the socket has to be handed back over to the TLS > > control path. This is literally the first thing that comes to mind, > > IDK how ugly it will look in reality so no promises. =20 >=20 > But then you're back to "read_sock stopped, caller has to take some > special action to handle the next bit of payload". It's not better > than "read_sock, and do a recvmsg when read_sock says it's not DATA". My bad, I replied without looking at the code. We already constrain control records in the way I proposed. rcvmsg (w/o cmsg) and read_sock will error out if the next record is control. I guess I don't understand what Chuck meant when he said that he has control data leaking into page cache ;/