Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2019 12:45:59 -0800 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] net/tls: Fix return values to avoid ENOTSUPP |
| |
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 21:43:43 +0100, Valentin Vidić wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:41:18 +0100, Valentin Vidic wrote: > > > > ENOTSUPP is not available in userspace, for example: > > > > > > > > setsockopt failed, 524, Unknown error 524 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Vidic <vvidic@valentin-vidic.from.hr> > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/tls/tls_device.c b/net/tls/tls_device.c > > > > index 0683788bbef0..cd91ad812291 100644 > > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_device.c > > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_device.c > > > > @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static int tls_push_data(struct sock *sk, > > > > > > > > if (flags & > > > > ~(MSG_MORE | MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_NOSIGNAL | MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST)) > > > > - return -ENOTSUPP; > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > > > > if (unlikely(sk->sk_err)) > > > > return -sk->sk_err; > > > > @@ -571,7 +571,7 @@ int tls_device_sendpage(struct sock *sk, struct page *page, > > > > lock_sock(sk); > > > > > > > > if (flags & MSG_OOB) { > > > > - rc = -ENOTSUPP; > > > > + rc = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > > Perhaps the flag checks should return EINVAL? Willem any opinions? > > > > No strong opinion. Judging from do_tcp_sendpages MSG_OOB is a > > supported flag in general for sendpage, so signaling that the TLS > > variant cannot support that otherwise valid request sounds fine to me. > > I based these on the description from the sendmsg manpage, but you decide: > > EOPNOTSUPP > Some bit in the flags argument is inappropriate for the socket type. > > > > > diff --git a/net/tls/tls_main.c b/net/tls/tls_main.c > > > > index bdca31ffe6da..5830b8e02a36 100644 > > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_main.c > > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_main.c > > > > @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ static int do_tls_setsockopt_conf(struct sock *sk, char __user *optval, > > > > /* check version */ > > > > if (crypto_info->version != TLS_1_2_VERSION && > > > > crypto_info->version != TLS_1_3_VERSION) { > > > > - rc = -ENOTSUPP; > > > > + rc = -EINVAL; > > > > > > This one I think Willem asked to be EOPNOTSUPP OTOH. > > > > Indeed (assuming no one disagrees). Based on the same rationale: the > > request may be valid, it just cannot be accommodated (yet). > > In this case other checks in the same function like crypto_info->cipher_type > return EINVAL, so I used the same here.
Thanks for explaining, in that case:
Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
| |