linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: add CHECKSUM target

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:17:34 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert.xu@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: add CHECKSUM target

Am 11.07.2010 12:47, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Am 09.07.2010 00:29, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
>>> This adds a `CHECKSUM' target, which can be used in the iptables mangle
>>> table.
>>>
>>> You can use this target to compute and fill in the checksum in
>>> an IP packet that lacks a checksum.  This is particularly useful,
>>> if you need to work around old applications such as dhcp clients,
>>> that do not work well with checksum offloads, but don't want to
>>> disable checksum offload in your device.
>>>
>>> The problem happens in the field with virtualized applications.
>>> For reference, see Red Hat bz 605555, as well as
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg37660.html
>>>
>>> Typical expected use (helps old dhclient binary running in a VM):
>>> iptables -A POSTROUTING -t mangle -p udp --dport 68 -j CHECKSUM
>>> --checksum-fill
>>
>> I'm not sure this is something we want to merge upstream and
>> support indefinitely. Dave suggested this as a temporary
>> out-of-tree workaround until the majority of guest dhcp clients
>> are fixed. Has anything changed that makes this course of
>> action impractical?
> 
> If I understand what Dave said correctly, it's up to you ...
> 
> The arguments for putting this upstream are:
> 
> Given the track record, I wouldn't hope for quick fix in the majority of
> guest dhcp clients, unfortunately :(.  We are talking years here.
> Even after that, one of the uses of virtualization is
> to keep old guests running. So yes, I think we'll
> keep using work-arounds for this for a very long time.
> 
> Further, since we have to add the module and we have to teach management
> to program it, it will be much less painful for everyone
> involved if we can put the code upstream, rather than forking
> management code.

Fair enough, its simple enough that I don't expect much maintenance
overhead.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/