On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:45:56 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 8/8/25 1:29 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > diff --git a/net/tls/tls_sw.c b/net/tls/tls_sw.c > > index 549d1ea01a72..51c98a007dda 100644 > > --- a/net/tls/tls_sw.c > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_sw.c > > @@ -1384,7 +1384,8 @@ tls_rx_rec_wait(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock > > *psock, bool nonblock, > > return sock_intr_errno(timeo); > > } > > > > - tls_strp_msg_load(&ctx->strp, released); > > + if (unlikely(!tls_strp_msg_load(&ctx->strp, released))) > > + return tls_rx_rec_wait(sk, psock, nonblock, false); > > I'm probably missing something relevant, but I don't see anything > preventing the above recursion from going very deep and cause stack > overflow. > > Perhaps something alike: > > released = false; > goto <function start> > > would be safer?
It's a tail call to the same function, the compiler should do that for us automatically. Can we not trust the compiler to be sensible? Both clang and gcc get it right.
