doc: net: sockets: Document mbed TLS limitation for non-blocking case #97338
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mbedtls_ssl_write() function has a limitation, that when the function returns MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_WRITE, the consecutive call to this function have to contain the same data as the previous call. As there doesn't seem to be a viable workaround for this at the socket layer (other than dropping non-blocking support which is not an option), we need to carry this requirement for non-blocking sockets as well, therefore document this case in secure sockets documentation. Signed-off-by: Robert Lubos <[email protected]>
|
jukkar
approved these changes
Oct 10, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
mbedtls_ssl_write() function has a limitation, that when the function returns MBEDTLS_ERR_SSL_WANT_WRITE, the consecutive call to this function have to contain the same data as the previous call. As there doesn't seem to be a viable workaround for this at the socket layer (other than dropping non-blocking support which is not an option), we need to carry this requirement for non-blocking sockets as well, therefore document this case in secure sockets documentation.