On Tue, 2025-07-29 at 10:12 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > [snip]... > > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/tls-handshake.rst > > b/Documentation/networking/tls-handshake.rst > > index 6f5ea1646a47..cd984a137779 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/networking/tls-handshake.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/networking/tls-handshake.rst > > @@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ The synopsis of this function is: > > .. code-block:: c > > > > typedef void (*tls_done_func_t)(void *data, int status, > > - key_serial_t peerid); > > + key_serial_t peerid, > > + size_t tls_record_size_limit); > > > > The consumer provides a cookie in the @ta_data field of the > > tls_handshake_args structure that is returned in the @data > > parameter of > > Why is this exposed to the TLS handshake consumer? > The TLS record size is surely required for handling and processing > TLS > streams in net/tls, but the consumer of that (eg NVMe-TCP, NFS) > are blissfully unaware that there _are_ such things like TLS records. > And they really should keep it that way. > > So I'd really _not_ expose that to any ULP and keep it internal to > the TLS layer. > Hey Hannes, Sorry for the delay in response, and thanks for the feedback! Yeah I agree it was a bad approach from me. It definitely makes more sense to keep things in the TLS layer. I will try to address this in V2. Regards, Wilfred
