From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AADC433E0 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 21:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83302074B for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 21:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XsekpyEm" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728544AbgFAVXj (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:23:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41254 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728205AbgFAVXi (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:23:38 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x142.google.com (mail-lf1-x142.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::142]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA94C061A0E; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x142.google.com with SMTP id 202so4813355lfe.5; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:23:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H2b28AkIEl8cTTOnSvSwRsLMj8pDY11OVKWEIgc0mGY=; b=XsekpyEm+5Xn61AEAPS7v3MqalHbMC2MXcaXKOmkzjQo10uFt1DRTK2RQULzRL3pWv lzWJCZ5TlskshiZJ+2RTYRm9aRcn+gBW+gPQL97Say73gv0pNVtA49soCjtclFFgTwAY ducc+vCLTwtWi46NvjZPg+Oti3IfG+aliogznZqF5yLx27bnS2jdT2qQ4vb6yk4e5uep AhnPsoHwcXofl5C35uHT92nZfvzmleP/iOAsPx7LgSSjsw4WB6usmYBdLJtf0ch9+ruO NBhFQnufe/vzKWtVK1XAD0UbJ4ODwZAh3WDeWNC1esU6E3G/fjXWfGD/R9Gy/uv4rQIs c7Eg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H2b28AkIEl8cTTOnSvSwRsLMj8pDY11OVKWEIgc0mGY=; b=KbLrgdC0avM6byVOHL+sIdbSi8BvjIPSrup6sm7cVeoJJnTieUXEkGfFXl4KrdszcH KuwWP5HW/nMClSMmy2sWczwl/ZUm3X6yJSgEjvKDRzLqLhhhINA0lhl3umLZBxwKQ4Wq 5bxFCd/tuuWIQ906eDoryjBAHf+EPLhkxbQ94+oQ+8opI9Gw0/DCeenHC+auL7njXWHa 5ZcteSOkuw6J2zAMc3OUHcFmErm/BYbzbeKobWI2/rR0DDMuV1u2eVAW37WYYIqONUK8 TjE93Jrqxg7dyEsyTenXgHIsJ7gve4PKtln6vjLz11rTXTDKtkCGh+DKA3alvYFQpgQh 3saQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Dmma3cyC8rZ66uhsH1HlPE7GjFwRbU5RYlLOnrF1zqVc7cFeC yrNX+FMKHAYUwagUI+BZW2yfWPkeUTknaVsG2LT3WQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDNeHW02meK621RTVpww8SqO92MrRK8y8cHP48Q3zWX/DgXHR5btr6zdLjjFjbjktFTVri0TQnOn+6nG1w/Ks= X-Received: by 2002:a19:987:: with SMTP id 129mr12253517lfj.8.1591046616932; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:23:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <159079336010.5745.8538518572099799848.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower> <159079361946.5745.605854335665044485.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower> <20200601165716.5a6fa76a@toad> <5ed51cae71d0d_3f612ade269e05b46e@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> In-Reply-To: <5ed51cae71d0d_3f612ade269e05b46e@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:23:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH 2/3] bpf: fix running sk_skb program types with ktls To: John Fastabend Cc: Jakub Sitnicki , Network Development , bpf , Daniel Borkmann Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:20 AM John Fastabend wrote: > > > @@ -1793,11 +1795,12 @@ int tls_sw_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, > > > > > > if (to_decrypt <= len && !is_kvec && !is_peek && > > > ctx->control == TLS_RECORD_TYPE_DATA && > > > - prot->version != TLS_1_3_VERSION) > > > + prot->version != TLS_1_3_VERSION && > > > + !sk_psock_strp_enabled(psock)) > > > > Is this recheck of parser state intentional? Or can we test for > > "!bpf_strp_enabled" here also? > > Yes I'll fix it up to use bpf_strp_enabled. Thanks I fixed that bit and applied the set. Thanks!