netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] ipv6: Allow for partial checksums on non-ufo packets

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:12 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
To:	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] ipv6: Allow for partial checksums on non-ufo
 packets

On 02/10/2015 09:07 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2015-01-31, 10:40:18 -0500, Vladislav Yasevich wrote:
>> Currntly, if we are not doing UFO on the packet, all UDP
>> packets will start with CHECKSUM_NONE and thus perform full
>> checksum computations in software even if device support
>> IPv6 checksum offloading.
>>
>> Let's start start with CHECKSUM_PARTIAL if the device
>> supports it and we are sending only a single packet at
>> or below mtu size.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
>> ---
> 
> This patch causes ICMPv6 checksumming issues for me.
> 
> On my tg3 device and on a qemu VM with e1000 emulation, outgoing pings
> have a bad checksum.  Router solicitations also have a bad checksum,
> so autoconf fails.  When I revert this patch, or when I disable
> tx-checksumming with ethtool, everything looks okay again.
> 
> On tg3, replies to ping seem always good.
> 
> On e1000, replies to ping work (more or less).  Sometimes the checksum
> is bad, sometimes it's good.
> 
> 
> % ping6 fec0::3456
> PING fec0::3456(fec0::3456) 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.433 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.457 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.448 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.451 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.485 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.476 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.448 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=0.438 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=0.413 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=0.452 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=0.440 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=30 ttl=64 time=0.485 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=32 ttl=64 time=0.473 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=33 ttl=64 time=0.472 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=34 ttl=64 time=0.395 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=35 ttl=64 time=0.456 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=36 ttl=64 time=0.409 ms
> ^C
> --- fec0::3456 ping statistics ---
> 36 packets transmitted, 17 received, 52% packet loss, time 34998ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.395/0.448/0.485/0.037 ms
> 
> 
> I've seen a few strange source addresses, but I don't know if it's
> related.
> 
> % ping6 fec0::3456
> PING fec0::3456(fec0::3456) 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from fec0::ff:ff00:0:3456: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.423 ms   <---
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.396 ms
> 64 bytes from fec0::3456: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.400 ms
> 
> 
> This could be a driver issue, or just exposing another problem
> somewhere else, I don't know.
> 
> Any idea?

Hi Sabrina

Thanks for reporting this.  I'll take a look.

-vlad

> 
> 
> Thanks
> 

--
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