netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/5] pktgen IPsec support

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:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:56:24 +0800
From:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/5] pktgen IPsec support

FWIW, I will follow Dave's suggestion not to touch your original
support at the first place no matter how below answer looks like.

On 2013年12月11日 21:42, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 12/09/13 20:23, David Miller wrote:
>
>> Maybe they didn't care about the checksum being correct in the
>> testbed they were using.
>
> Thats correct. The point is to exercise the crypto code.
> Please dont change this.

However exercising crypto engine on host running pktgen does *NOT* necessary
requiring bad IP checksum value and wrong total len value, because encryption
has been done.

I'm confused here with your test rationale, and what's wrong to use
the right checksum/total length value? Please clear my puzzles.

Thanks
-- 
浮沉随浪只记今朝笑

--fan
--
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