2025-09-25, 23:37:09 +0000, Wilfred Mallawa wrote:

On Thu, 2025-09-25 at 23:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:

quoted

2025-09-25, 05:39:14 +0000, Wilfred Mallawa wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2025-09-24 at 19:50 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -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).

-- 
Sabrina