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
