On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:00:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 08:27:56PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > > + dan Carpenter > > > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 04:07:44PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > > Allow userspace to end a TLS record without supplying any data by calling > > > send()/sendto()/sendmsg() with no data and no MSG_MORE flag. This can be > > > used to flush a previous send/splice that had MSG_MORE or SPLICE_F_MORE set > > > or a sendfile() that was incomplete. > > > > > > Without this, a zero-length send to tls-sw is just ignored. I think > > > tls-device will do the right thing without modification. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: Boris Pismenny <borisp@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > --- > > > net/tls/tls_sw.c | 6 +++++- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/tls/tls_sw.c b/net/tls/tls_sw.c > > > index cac1adc968e8..6aa6d17888f5 100644 > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_sw.c > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_sw.c > > > @@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ int tls_sw_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size) > > > struct tls_rec *rec; > > > int required_size; > > > int num_async = 0; > > > - bool full_record; > > > + bool full_record = false; > > > int record_room; > > > int num_zc = 0; > > > int orig_size; > > > @@ -971,6 +971,9 @@ int tls_sw_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > + if (!msg_data_left(msg) && eor) > > > + goto just_flush; > > > + > > > > Hi David, > > > > the flow of this function is not entirely simple, so it is not easy for me > > to manually verify this. But in combination gcc-12 -Wmaybe-uninitialized > > and Smatch report that the following may be used uninitialised as a result > > of this change: > > > > * msg_pl > > This warning seems correct to me. > > > * orig_size > > This warning assumes we hit the first warning and then hit the goto > wait_for_memory; > > > * msg_en > > I don't get this warning on my system but it's the same thing. Hit the > first warning then the goto wait_for_memory. > > > * required_size > > Same. > > > * try_to_copy > > I don't really understand this warning and I can't reproduce it. > Strange. Thanks Dan. Of the above I think only the last one was flagged by GCC but not Smatch. I can try investigating further if it is useful.
