Re: [syzbot] [net?] WARNING in tls_err_abort

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 17:19:22 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> I suspect err==0, and sock_error() consumed sk_err in between (the
> alternative would be err > 0).
> 
> Something like this?

Makes sense, but what's eating sk_err? Don't we depend on it being set
to avoid further state transitions once we hit a crypto error?
I thought that's why we don't consume sk_err in recvmsg and sendmsg in
the first place (we are not calling sock_error() anywhere)