MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230226201730.515449-1-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com> <CANn89iKtiwF6AwBT3CgMUVvtA7pGON5O-aOUG4aQSSgmxDMVbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iKtiwF6AwBT3CgMUVvtA7pGON5O-aOUG4aQSSgmxDMVbg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:21:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEivzxeZKUkL2-gSeK8R+PJ2NppB-OKcVYbvLbX-uKbtahf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] scm: fix MSG_CTRUNC setting condition for SO_PASSSEC
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:01=E2=80=AFAM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 9:17=E2=80=AFPM Alexander Mikhalitsyn
> <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> > Currently, we set MSG_CTRUNC flag is we have no
> > msg_control buffer provided and SO_PASSCRED is set
> > or if we have pending SCM_RIGHTS.
> >
> > For some reason we have no corresponding check for
> > SO_PASSSEC.
>

Hi Eric,

> Can you describe what side effects this patch has ?
>
> I think it could break some applications, who might not be able to
> recover from MSG_CTRUNC in this case.
> This should be documented, in order to avoid a future revert.

Yes, it can break applications but only those who use SO_PASSSEC
and not properly check MSG_CTRUNC. According to the recv(2) man:

       MSG_CTRUNC
              indicates that some control data was discarded due to lack
              of space in the buffer for ancillary data.

So, there is no specification about a particular SCM type. It seems more co=
rrect
to handle SCM_SECURITY the same way as SCM_RIGHTS / SCM_CREDENTIALS.

>
> In any case, net-next is currently closed.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Kind regards,
Alex