On 8/12/25 3:28 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:45:56 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
On 8/8/25 1:29 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
diff --git a/net/tls/tls_sw.c b/net/tls/tls_sw.c index 549d1ea01a72..51c98a007dda 100644 --- a/net/tls/tls_sw.c +++ b/net/tls/tls_sw.c @@ -1384,7 +1384,8 @@ tls_rx_rec_wait(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock, bool nonblock, return sock_intr_errno(timeo); }
- tls_strp_msg_load(&ctx->strp, released);
- if (unlikely(!tls_strp_msg_load(&ctx->strp, released)))
return tls_rx_rec_wait(sk, psock, nonblock, false);I'm probably missing something relevant, but I don't see anything preventing the above recursion from going very deep and cause stack overflow.
Perhaps something alike:
released = false; goto <function start>would be safer?
It's a tail call to the same function, the compiler should do that for us automatically. Can we not trust the compiler to be sensible? Both clang and gcc get it right.
Sound reasonable, I dumbly did not consider it. I'm fine with the patch in the current form.
/P