netdev - Re: [udplite] [Patch 1/1] [BUG-FIX]: Avoid u16 checksum coverage wrap-around

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

Date:	Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [udplite] [Patch 1/1] [BUG-FIX]: Avoid u16 checksum coverage
 wrap-around

From: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:31:41 +0100

> udplite: Protection against coverage value wrap-around
> 
> This protects UDP-Lite against illegal checksum coverage values and
> against illegal checksum coverage values caused by the `int' argument
> wrapping around at 0xffff.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>

Please preserve the current of using the default value of "8" when an
illegal value is specified.  This behavior might be important and
specified somewhere, such as the BSD socket API for udplite used on
other systems.  The fact that it's even explicitly mentioned in the
documentation file is a strong indication that it might be that way
for a good reason.

Also, even if we should change the behvaior, it's a seperate change
from correcting the test.

Gerrit, you like to mix up multiple things at the same time and it
makes your stuff harder to review.  It also, as a result, makes it
take longer to integrate your work.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html