On Tue, 19 May 2020 02:55:16 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 19.05.2020 02:23, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 May 2020 02:05:29 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> >> On 19.05.2020 01:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> tls_push_record can return -EAGAIN because of tcp layer. In that
> cas
On 19.05.2020 02:23, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2020 02:05:29 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
On 19.05.2020 01:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
tls_push_record can return -EAGAIN because of tcp layer. In that
case open_rec is already in the tx_record list and should not be
freed.
Also the recor
On Tue, 19 May 2020 02:05:29 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 19.05.2020 01:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > tls_push_record can return -EAGAIN because of tcp layer. In that
> > > case open_rec is already in the tx_record list and should not be
> > > freed.
> > > Also the record size can be more th
On 19.05.2020 01:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> tls_push_record can return -EAGAIN because of tcp layer. In that
> case open_rec is already in the tx_record list and should not be
> freed.
> Also the record size can be more than the size requested to write
> in tls_sw_do_sendpage(). That leads to
On Sun, 17 May 2020 02:48:39 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> tls_push_record can return -EAGAIN because of tcp layer. In that
> case open_rec is already in the tx_record list and should not be
> freed.
> Also the record size can be more than the size requested to write
> in tls_sw_do_sendpage(). Tha
tls_push_record can return -EAGAIN because of tcp layer. In that
case open_rec is already in the tx_record list and should not be
freed.
Also the record size can be more than the size requested to write
in tls_sw_do_sendpage(). That leads to overflow of copied variable
and wrong return code.
Fixes
