2025-09-25, 23:37:09 +0000, Wilfred Mallawa wrote:
On Thu, 2025-09-25 at 23:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
2025-09-25, 05:39:14 +0000, Wilfred Mallawa wrote:
On Wed, 2025-09-24 at 19:50 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
@@ -1111,6 +1180,11 @@ static int tls_get_info(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, bool net_admin) goto nla_failure; }
- err = nla_put_u16(skb, TLS_INFO_TX_RECORD_SIZE_LIM,
ctx->tx_record_size_limit);I'm not sure here: if we do the +1 adjustment we'd be consistent with the value reported by getsockopt, but OTOH users may get confused about seeing a value larger than TLS_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE.
Makes sense to keep the behaviour the same as getsockopt() right? So add the +1 changes here based on version (same as getsockopt()). In which case, it should never exceed TLS_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE.
The max value for 1.3 is TLS_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE+1 (after adjustment), since it's the max value that will be accepted by setsockopt (after passing the "value - 1 > TLS_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE" check). And it's the value most users will see since it's the default.
Ah I see what you mean. In regards to "but OTOH users may get confused about seeing a value larger than TLS_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE.", do you think it's sufficient to document TLS_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE and specify that for TLS 1.3 this doesn't include the ContentType byte?
I guess it will have to do. Otherwise, unless someone has another idea, we're back to the discussion on v3 (ie setting the actual payload size instead of the record limit).