On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 16:16:33 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > 2026-07-29, 16:31:42 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 22:51:30 -0400 Chuck Lever wrote: > > > No-one is asking you to roll over. Review means you get to steer > > > us in the right direction, and I promise to do the leg work. Terse > > > rejection doesn’t move the discussion forward. It stops it cold. > > > > With LLMs tho, the entire human effort is in finding the right design, > > rather than the code. So asking maintainers to hand hold everyone thru > > their features is unrealistic. > > > > Off the top of my head I think a setsockopt which pre-seeds the content > > type so that the read returns an errno if the queued content type is > > different could be a simple fix. You'd configure that on your sockets > > to DATA and once you see a EWHATEVER you'd assume that some special > > record arrived and the socket has to be handed back over to the TLS > > control path. This is literally the first thing that comes to mind, > > IDK how ugly it will look in reality so no promises. > > But then you're back to "read_sock stopped, caller has to take some > special action to handle the next bit of payload". It's not better > than "read_sock, and do a recvmsg when read_sock says it's not DATA".
My bad, I replied without looking at the code. We already constrain control records in the way I proposed. rcvmsg (w/o cmsg) and read_sock will error out if the next record is control. I guess I don't understand what Chuck meant when he said that he has control data leaking into page cache ;/
