> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 3:46 PM
> To: Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@xxxxxxx>; Stephen Rothwell
> <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Networking <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel
> Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; davejwatson@xxxxxx;
> doronrk@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
>
> On 09/18/2018 11:53 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 09/18/2018 11:32 AM, Vakul Garg wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:57 PM
> >>> To: Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@xxxxxxx>; Stephen Rothwell
> >>> <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >>> Networking <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux
> >>> Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the
> >>> net tree
> >>>
> >>> On 09/18/2018 11:10 AM, Vakul Garg wrote:
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:14 PM
> >>>>> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Miller
> >>>>> <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Networking <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux
> >>>>> Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Vakul Garg
> >>>>> <vakul.garg@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with
> >>>>> the net tree
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 09/18/2018 02:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> between commit:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 50c6b58a814d ("tls: fix currently broken MSG_PEEK behavior")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> from the net tree and commit:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> c2ad647c6442 ("selftests/tls: Add test for recv(PEEK) spanning
> >>>>>> across multiple records")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> from the net-next tree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> >>>>>> This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non
> >>>>>> trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> >>>>>> when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to
> >>>>>> consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree
> >>>>>> to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The test from 50c6b58a814d supersedes the one from c2ad647c6442
> so
> >>>>> the recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs could be removed; latter was
> >>>>> also not working correctly due to this bug.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why remove recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs if its correct?
> >>>> Why not the newly added one which achieves the same thing?
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, not quite, on net-next kernel, the
> >>> recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs fails every time I invoke the tls test
> suite:
> >>>
> >>> # ./tls
> >>> [==========] Running 28 tests from 2 test cases.
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.sendfile
> >>> [ OK ] tls.sendfile
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.send_then_sendfile
> >>> [ OK ] tls.send_then_sendfile
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recv_max
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recv_max
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recv_small
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recv_small
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.msg_more
> >>> [ OK ] tls.msg_more
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.sendmsg_single
> >>> [ OK ] tls.sendmsg_single
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.sendmsg_large
> >>> [ OK ] tls.sendmsg_large
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.sendmsg_multiple
> >>> [ OK ] tls.sendmsg_multiple
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.sendmsg_multiple_stress
> >>> [ OK ] tls.sendmsg_multiple_stress
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.splice_from_pipe
> >>> [ OK ] tls.splice_from_pipe
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.splice_from_pipe2
> >>> [ OK ] tls.splice_from_pipe2
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.send_and_splice
> >>> [ OK ] tls.send_and_splice
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.splice_to_pipe
> >>> [ OK ] tls.splice_to_pipe
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recvmsg_single
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recvmsg_single
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recvmsg_single_max
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recvmsg_single_max
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recvmsg_multiple
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recvmsg_multiple
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.single_send_multiple_recv
> >>> [ OK ] tls.single_send_multiple_recv
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.multiple_send_single_recv
> >>> [ OK ] tls.multiple_send_single_recv
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recv_partial
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recv_partial
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recv_nonblock
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recv_nonblock
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recv_peek
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recv_peek
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recv_peek_multiple
> >>> [ OK ] tls.recv_peek_multiple
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs
> >>> tls.c:524:tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs:Expected
> >>> memcmp(test_str, buf, len) (18446744073709551595) == 0 (0)
> >>> tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs: Test failed at step #8
> >>> [ FAIL ] tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.pollin
> >>> [ OK ] tls.pollin
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.poll_wait
> >>> [ OK ] tls.poll_wait
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.blocking
> >>> [ OK ] tls.blocking
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.nonblocking
> >>> [ OK ] tls.nonblocking
> >>> [ RUN ] tls.control_msg
> >>> [ OK ] tls.control_msg
> >>> [==========] 27 / 28 tests passed.
> >>> [ FAILED ]
> >>>
> >>> Here's what the recvfrom() with MSG_PEEK sees:
> >>>
> >>> [pid 2602] socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3 [pid 2602]
> >>> socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 4 [pid 2602] bind(4,
> >>> {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(0),
> >>> sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")}, 16) =
> >>> 0
> >>> [pid 2602] listen(4, 10) = 0
> >>> [pid 2602] getsockname(4, {sa_family=AF_INET,
> >>> sin_port=htons(41483), sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")}, [16]) = 0
> >>> [pid 2602] connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(41483),
> >>> sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")},
> >>> 16) = 0 [pid 2602] setsockopt(3, SOL_TCP, 0x1f /* TCP_??? */,
> >>> [7564404], 4) = 0 [pid 2602] setsockopt(3, 0x11a /* SOL_?? */, 1,
> >>>
> "\3\0033\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".
> >>> ..,
> >>> 40) = 0 [pid 2602] accept(4, {sa_family=AF_INET,
> >>> sin_port=htons(46290), sin_addr=inet_addr("127.0.0.1")}, [16]) = 5
> >>> [pid 2602] setsockopt(5, SOL_TCP, 0x1f /* TCP_??? */, [7564404], 4)
> >>> = 0 [pid 2602] setsockopt(5, 0x11a /* SOL_?? */, 2,
> >>>
> "\3\0033\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".
> >>> ..,
> >>> 40) = 0
> >>> [pid 2602] close(4) = 0
> >>> [pid 2602] sendto(3, "test_read_peek", 14, 0, NULL, 0) = 14 [pid
> >>> 2602] sendto(3, "_mult_recs\0", 11, 0, NULL, 0) = 11 [pid 2602]
> >>> recvfrom(5, "test_read_peektest_read_peektest"..., 64, MSG_PEEK,
> >>> NULL, NULL) = 64 [pid 2602] write(2,
> >>> "tls.c:526:tls.recv_peek_large_bu"...,
> >>> 112tls.c:526:tls.recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs:Expected
> >>> memcmp(test_str, buf, len) (18446744073709551595) == 0 (0)
> >>> ) = 112
> >>> [pid 2602] close(3) = 0
> >>> [pid 2602] close(5) = 0
> >>> [pid 2602] exit_group(8) = ?
> >>>
> >>> Reason for the "test_read_peektest_read_peektest[...]" is because
> >>> MSG_PEEK cannot call tls_sw_advance_skb(), since the skb is sitting
> >>> there that needs to be consumed for non-MSG_PEEK case, and only then
> >>> we can advance it.
> >>
> >> I general, my plan was to modify the tls_sw_recvmsg() to trigger as
> >> many decryption as possible as required by requested user space PEEK
> size.
> >> This would have required creating a pending list of decrypted records in
> tls_tx context.
> >
> > Right, had been thinking the same though for a fix in -net it would
> > have been way too intrusive, hence the 50c6b58a814d ("tls: fix
> > currently broken MSG_PEEK
> > behavior") to avoid looping the same record which is clearly a bug.
> > Wondering if DaveW's original rationale was to avoid accumulating too
> > many records in the kernel since we would need to unpause strparser
> > and keep processing the deeper we peek.
> >
> >>> Could you elaborate on where you ever had this test succeeding? With
> >>> nxp accelerator?
> >>
> >> I never had this test succeeding. I pointed the problem to Dave
> >> Watson sometime back (found during code reading).
> >>
> >> To make sure that this bug does not slip out, I simply submitted a
> >> test case to keep reminding ourselves that we need to fix it sometime.
> >
> > Ok, I think usually tests assert current kernel behavior to make sure
> > any changes coming in don't accidentally break expectations from
> > applications as opposed to future tests that still need fixing, but I
> > guess I'm fine either way how to resolve the conflict; leaving it up to
> DaveM. Thanks for clarifying!
>
> By the way, full commit message from c2ad647c6442 said:
>
> selftests/tls: Add test for recv(PEEK) spanning across multiple records
>
> Added test case to receive multiple records with a single recvmsg()
> operation with a MSG_PEEK set.
>
> From reading it, the expectation would normally be that the test case would
> succeed for the author, I think in future such things definitely need to be
> better clarified in the commit log to avoid confusion for others.
>
Got it.
Thanks for the guidance.
> Thanks,
> Daniel
