From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.147]) (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 DBCC31F12F8 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 20:10:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787343032; cv=none; b=YVump7l0KQ6r2HUDyIIOUBPbowat+reN7PgxJNQW7kvBiyiiCSZBfutCLop4flN/hqDmQ3KKkWwdVK30HKCSHvgVgakcPQ9uZyLAb912sw9oHad0gr+gMFI+TLLCpq4kQnllFlb6ov+68i/6l8gp/uB5V0yiw9SJZ1w9KoSieH8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787343032; c=relaxed/simple; bh=djlscI6Z+LF0NxjXAdGB78RNFzhAuQB+OJNtld4lLeQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FQSvL7uz+otH5CcsIkAq2Fn8+AbwTqhYP8ixfVyjagqA1PGYtnONotMowRjZqtOQeLQXWGel+NScSkhR5OGSd9IPshhAWkhzDCrgvW0KVwf1Bvi2XPhncS9JChPwo8cjIQ7eieU+ktpFicCOLTTc0ggIxkdUU/4nGqAe7lV70d4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b=PyjNmz4R; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=X7nFTDDq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.147 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b="PyjNmz4R"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="X7nFTDDq" Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BDE1D00143; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:10:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:10:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queasysnail.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1787343027; x= 1787429427; bh=wOJEIZey0XAYRKNTuh9QZxO5M2cSQKFK7Ri8O1Gr/Ck=; b=P yjNmz4RWrXyFl4XXHXFWPz6MKeyQhST1bAuDlDS9YwXEbtO37MIFmOibEeT/duSl 3nSw6gdy+NAMF1y7GaBBZfn17qLnyB5GkpLqLkx322/1yKqSpPK6W5DNjImErCWK yBOu4LBGvpm7DE5g8Y24dZRaOly4xrOrl2zX2JmG9EL4BupQfdsfW1jQSMeEAUbn KVC/RsqCaz9ejdGr/Upl61Agh3a/T0GpFBYB3tPW3QOaMixQn/rLe1xLUPQANRm0 yaFoxQ6+H8yJpTHWnmwNkcx718TmiuluyO4xnaSAPwNMsL6ypE+TQjMizTkDhS6U aoyxK+tzgvI9WUGfthTgQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1787343027; x=1787429427; bh=wOJEIZey0XAYRKNTuh9QZxO5M2cSQKFK7Ri 8O1Gr/Ck=; b=X7nFTDDq49j5b1jVPly6mWIdgreVdkqd4qXOmKCj+RullKQ+OgU ZHgZ9+3cXH76wm/txmTsV83hKkEjFaTaT/mnnSsyd29QgqaSgaOtOuHheg7HgDK0 tWWJ48wCErAzhqsiToPOqutKVBv5s3VrrBgenbHxuvfL+9SC0lnXFubkdmLzvVuY yuwy+nEwinZLWLYlXEFhzfZuL+gRR9HjZXYYsDK5RtgJEukIgBsdg7JkEXiMLhgY NYs6wjgCeDxNGOBqHaaSSxplZi/kCgAdXJaAChWXQNl/k+IY9keQbK+zhz2Ycfyf cCk7ePUnfR2Y0FDKATn+8X0sELM/FtSBs/w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTFMXdD8pPxOO+OgipmaLQB0QqO2bRxUCbwo0tA6AaZ0A/jpc64I78R6vhMH07Vkm/ UJaI8VGmbMOk+EYO35MT/YRbLbgEHySU9zdAcaGf77o4+Ruunk05aquNKm7uBWSIRLosfR iPGAg/dhDUUO2r7uKw/R/ah7QK38ymu6RQtWPCmQbNma3Ttn+6YjtXFXGQkpYY8N+QIkyw H167RWh6/7WKF/coInQF3U6SlltnLe+ecP8kWIHYZLCComCDGOKy4qjjcfIaV4DhhBACnD 696QT6G+x/cLGEIavBViC0cq30jS+IB7J1thzxVJAM413bFJCWuQEpggPIwYrJGObVb3Bu OlEB1pl50A7cFQFgJGDdL3mFbbGy9JmHAzd5MdgOQRb4nMrk2j001qm22giN+ynSZGOpxM XXtk6xhBsJMdmLcys4NFr4oipI2J1lEhRDVPgVe7U2vOxGIN/eYSdDev8aP9O4BU/CdjMU STfpKaL84SQTW6ZY0izUK8bjwfTQ43t1Vid8a5KSTFYkKBX6DsftfgBnTRmW5YSc1mW45K tn6dfXuIFJQBkKirfzNHwLhmaWMTjA3wDeTyvBSOU2X6byjbtPC4cTWPoCoxpDBzqEMpdk k0l6zeZTOT3J7fiyHtl2Xrv+MF+8pbWPniE/gXlG37ucybD8Hurk8uwYac/w X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i934648bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 22:10:25 +0200 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Sasha Levin Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12.y 1/2] selftests: tls: add rekey tests Message-ID: References: <2026081717-verbalize-stylist-2627@gregkh> <20260819113944.3620902-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20260821152000.rc-tls-rekey@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260821152000.rc-tls-rekey@kernel.org> 2026-08-21, 12:51:30 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 05:19:24PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > All of those rekey tests are going to fail if you don't take the rekey > > implementation as well (which I hope isn't getting backported to any > > stable kernels). You probably don't want that. > > You're right, and thanks for catching it. > > To be unambiguous about what this actually affected: the 6.12.y series > you're replying to here was never queued, so there was nothing to drop > on 6.12. The same selftest had, however, already been queued for 6.6 > from a separate 6.6.y posting, and that is what I've now dropped. Three Right. I saw something for 6.6 and kind of assumed that replying to 6.12 would be enough since it should be the exact same situation there. I won't assume next time. > patches came out of the 6.6 queue: > > - selftests: tls: add rekey tests (555f0edb9ff0) > - selftests: tls: add test with a partially invalid iov (dc54b813df63) > - tls: rx: restore msg_iter before TLS 1.3 optimistic retry (1c8629651cb5) Sounds ok. I guess you could still backport the retry fix, you would just get a trivial conflict on the selftest because the context changed, but it's a minor behavioral bug. > On 6.6 it's worse than the tests failing - the selftest doesn't even > build. tls_crypto_info_init() only grew its key_generation argument in > b2e584aa3c71, which isn't in 6.6, so the ~20 four-argument call sites Yes, that was also part of the rekey series. > the rekey patch adds fail to compile, and __test_passed() (69fe8ec4f673, > v6.9) is missing from 6.6's kselftest_harness.h. And of course the rekey > implementation itself (0471b1093e3a, 47069594e67e, 510128b30f2d) isn't > there, so tls_main.c still returns -EBUSY on the second setsockopt() > that every rekey test expects to succeed. Thanks. -- Sabrina