Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.18-6.1] tls: reject the combination of TLS and sockmap
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>
Date: 2026-09-01 09:36:40
Also in:
linux-patches, lkml, stable
2026-08-31, 09:30:24 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> [ Upstream commit 460e6486617c17dd19abe8f3fc67d9a6fa25f8ca ] TLS and sockmap (BPF psock) integration hides a lot of latent bugs. Bugs which may be more or less relevant for real users but they are definitely exploitable. We could not find anyone actively using this integration so let's reject this config. Adding a TLS socket to a sockmap was already rejected by sk_psock_init() through the inet_csk_has_ulp() check. We need to reject the attempts to configure the TLS keys (rather than adding the ULP itself) because checking prior to the ULP installation is tricky without risking a race with sockmap getting added in parallel (sockmap does not hold the socket lock). This patch is a minimal rejection of the feature. Subsequent patch in the series will do a light dead code removal. Full cleanup would require a major rewrite of the Tx path, we don't need skmsg any more. Reviewed-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> Reviewed-by: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260614014102.461064-2-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> --- LLM Generated explanations, may be completely bogus:
330L... wow.
## Phase 1: Commit Message Forensics ### Step 1.1: Subject line **Record:** `[tls]` / `reject` — reject the unsupported TLS + sockmap (BPF psock) configuration. ### Step 1.2: Tags **Record:** - **Reviewed-by:** Jakub Sitnicki `[off-list ref]` - **Reviewed-by:** Sabrina Dubroca `[off-list ref]` - **Link:** https://patch.msgid.link/20260614014102.461064-2-kuba@kernel.org - **Signed-off-by:** Jakub Kicinski `[off-list ref]` - No Fixes:, Reported-by:, Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, or syzbot tags
Yes, this was intentionally sent to net-next without a Fixes tag, because it's a "feature-level" change, so it kind of feels wrong to send that to stable (even if it's removing a feature that nobody seems to be using). OTOH the code is broken and not really fixable... -- Sabrina