On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:59:54 + Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> >>> Sorry I wasn't clear enough, should this be:
> >>>
> >>> if (ctx->control != control)
> >>>
> >>> ? Otherwise if we get a control record first and then data record
> >>> the code will collapse them, which isn't correct, right?
> >>>
On 17.11.2020 00:54, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:45:11 + Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
On 17.11.2020 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 07:16:00 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
If tcp socket has more data than Encrypted Handshake Message then
tls_sw_recvmsg will try
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:45:11 + Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 17.11.2020 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 07:16:00 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> >> If tcp socket has more data than Encrypted Handshake Message then
> >> tls_sw_recvmsg will try to decrypt next record instead o
On 17.11.2020 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 07:16:00 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
If tcp socket has more data than Encrypted Handshake Message then
tls_sw_recvmsg will try to decrypt next record instead of returning
full control message to userspace as mentioned in comment.
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 07:16:00 +0300 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> If tcp socket has more data than Encrypted Handshake Message then
> tls_sw_recvmsg will try to decrypt next record instead of returning
> full control message to userspace as mentioned in comment. The next
> message - usually Application D
If tcp socket has more data than Encrypted Handshake Message then
tls_sw_recvmsg will try to decrypt next record instead of returning
full control message to userspace as mentioned in comment. The next
message - usually Application Data - gets corrupted because it uses
zero copy for decryption that
