On Tue, Jul 28, 2026, at 9:43 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 10:27:54 -0400 Chuck Lever wrote:
>> - The no-data cap (patch 1) is a prerequisite, not a stand-alone fix.
>> Once control records reach read_sock, a record carrying no payload
>> stops advancing the caller's read descriptor, so a peer streaming
>> such records would pin the socket lock and the kernel receive
>> context for as long as the flood lasts. Bounding consecutive
>> no-data records supplies the return boundary a system call would
>> otherwise provide. The cap is scoped to tls_sw_read_sock() alone:
>> splice and recvmsg run in the caller's own context, reschedule, and
>> drop the lock on return, so they need nothing.
>
> Is it just me or this is incomprehensible slop? Run on sentences
> full of terms no kernel developer would use?
It makes sense to me. Which terms do you have trouble with?
Patch 1 is moving to a pre-requisite series, so this can be dropped
from the cover letter.
--
Chuck Lever
