On 28/2/2023 03:07, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:26:18 +0800 Hangyu Hua wrote:

quoted

In order to reduce ambiguity, I think it may be a good idea only to
lock do_tls_getsockopt_conf() like we did in do_tls_setsockopt()

It will look like:

static int do_tls_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int optname,
			     char __user *optval, int __user *optlen)
{
	int rc = 0;

	switch (optname) {
	case TLS_TX:
	case TLS_RX:
+		lock_sock(sk);
		rc = do_tls_getsockopt_conf(sk, optval, optlen,
					    optname == TLS_TX);
+		release_sock(sk);
		break;
	case TLS_TX_ZEROCOPY_RO:
		rc = do_tls_getsockopt_tx_zc(sk, optval, optlen);
		break;
	case TLS_RX_EXPECT_NO_PAD:
		rc = do_tls_getsockopt_no_pad(sk, optval, optlen);
		break;
	default:
		rc = -ENOPROTOOPT;
		break;
	}
	return rc;
}

Of cause, I will clean the lock in do_tls_getsockopt_conf(). What do you
guys think?

I'd suggest to take the lock around the entire switch statement.

I get it. I will send a v2 later.

Thanks,
Hangyu