netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v4 3/5] xen-netback: Unconditionally set NETIF_F

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:	Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:03:17 +0000
From:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC:	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v4 3/5] xen-netback: Unconditionally set
 NETIF_F_RXCSUM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Campbell
> Sent: 14 October 2013 11:56
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Wei Liu; David Vrabel
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/5] xen-netback: Unconditionally set
> NETIF_F_RXCSUM
> 
> On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 16:06 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > There is no mechanism to insist that a guest always generates a packet
> > with good checksum (at least for IPv4)
> 
> Isn't this what feature-no-csum-offload is?
> 

Theoretically, yes, but netback does not have code to advertise that flag (and never has?) and I don't see anything in xen-netfront that checks such a flag so I think we have to assume it's not going to be honoured even if we were to introduce it now.

  Paul