From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6AF4C76188 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:59:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To: From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=89ejim99vJCRh8lEUYs4fYdoMNLFynX5avZZ+Re6/M0=; b=wA7/yDxtQsema8GSdooK0KdKVd 6P4kpk/7I78esyXN42DKQVa9ufEyROQaEAd6QKM9wp4aF9SABnqC7RYh8j1yTKqjXnS746PXYRdLp 6L+HwkOl9Iv3oh4jIXiIQDMJmpSwrsr+BNYfPt95CH0o9bKefHSjI9qtmvlrF/eUQ9rWnhQB60dAG /APi6tccVfqiPNrpyaifMbQwIQuRfTlpqLBVcrfc9hNwfupaucU8iB0s6jC58xNv47hrFyBpYmX5g ulhIGmCggtdpwvyVYs6iq3/wr+Bt2m2vjJUlHC9C19OcLWenEj3n8G2XEOyvei/PtwjrElvaNhDCm p9KyM3DQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pjLey-00FiOE-1S; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 14:59:52 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pjLev-00FiNV-2I for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 14:59:50 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97C8461A35; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 885FBC433EF; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:59:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1680533988; bh=iHxQ6TDni0DnO0ZD0cAtbe8dQJZb9kwWdQ0/MxSR+0k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=fSr1Cq8zdGVk3tXS9FlFWGl6+w7/vu1+ZS71orOg2F5IaV8brAss157RL1duL94Po EtdZfuofj/suPv1Do/vje1jWFKrZ+T2aNHt12ohA71s5DBC1iC8W/ZDUQcSO7FZGEl E4QVesBinTNggRF4yYvmDjR15itjhvKmMYI1NMfTEBo3PCFJx64yIv97EtarU9P/Vj gmWk9hTwBH8npUeeebFBZCpvhDaRdjcci3N8JXCTREK+uwcneTUSkX+7I4+8HdnXZy 3y0/3nHR7vinrU5dx+si+5wgy9XWniygtDmHwqv6C27c5x4Znr8Ge9VPDkyHCzcJYL M94T7nzr4WijA== Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 07:59:46 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: Hannes Reinecke , Christoph Hellwig , Boris Pismenny , john.fastabend@gmail.com, Paolo Abeni , Keith Busch , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Chuck Lever , kernel-tls-handshake@lists.linux.dev, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nvme-tcp: fixup send workflow for kTLS Message-ID: <20230403075946.26ad71ee@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <44fe87ba-e873-fa05-d294-d29d5e6dd4b5@grimberg.me> References: <20230329135938.46905-1-hare@suse.de> <20230329135938.46905-11-hare@suse.de> <634385cc-35af-eca0-edcb-1196a95d1dfa@grimberg.me> <20230330224920.3a47fec9@kernel.org> <7f057726-8777-2fd3-a207-b3cd96076cb9@suse.de> <44fe87ba-e873-fa05-d294-d29d5e6dd4b5@grimberg.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230403_075949_805701_0D038746 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.42 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:20:13 +0300 Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >> Some of the flags are call specific, others may be internal to the > >> networking stack (e.g. the DECRYPTED flag). Old protocols didn't do > >> any validation because people coded more haphazardly in the 90s. > >> This lack of validation is a major source of technical debt :( > > > > A-ha. So what is the plan? > > Should the stack validate flags? > > And should the rules for validating be the same for all protocols? > > MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST is not an internal flag, I thought it was > essentially similar semantics to MSG_MORE but for sendpage. It'd > be great if this can be allowed in tls (again, at the very least > don't fail but continue as if it wasn't passed). .. but.. MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST is supported in TLS, isn't it? Why are we talking about it?