Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] net: Introduce read_sock_rectype proto_ops for control record delivery

["Chuck Lever" <cel@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026, at 10:30 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:57:21 -0400 Chuck Lever wrote:
>> > To me this is an ugly one-off workaround that doesn't fit into 
>> > the proto_ops (only TLS will use it). And you seem to net out
>> > to the same LOC on SUNRPC side with and without this?  
>> 
>> It’s not about LOC. It’s about not cluttering the normal I/O
>> path with a lot of exception processing to handle TLS Alert
>> records. The CMSG API is very difficult to use and leaks the
>> alert messages into I/O buffers (which for in-kernel consumers
>> are page cache pages). It’s piss-poor API design.
>
> I'm not arguing that it's amazing. Doesn't mean we will YOLO
> a special proto callback for every protocol stacking :/

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’t move the discussion forward. It stops it cold.

Complaining about slop also does not tell me where you need this
to go. I use AI to go from blank page to RFC/v1. Where we go next
is up to human taste, as always.


>> > There needs to be a very strong reason for us to add APIs for
>> > in kernel consumers.  
>> 
>> This is not a helpful position. Your objection is the same
>> every time, treating the in-kernel users as second-class
>> citizens.
>
> No, it's not a second class citizen. But kernel consumers have a
> tendency to break all abstractions and insert hacks all over the place
> just because they are not forced to go via uAPI boundary which forces
> people to think about the API design.

Granted that user space self-tests can’t reach kernel-only APIs.
But that is what Kunit is for.


> You just need to try a little harder to produce a better solution.
> Rework or augment existing callbacks to let your achieve the behavior
> you want.

My original approach was to add a new read_sock variant because I
suspected you wouldn’t want read_sock itself to grow another argument.

I thought the RFC series cover letter made it clear that we are
looking for input and direction, not to sell a completely formed idea.


-- 
Chuck Lever