| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:38:52 -0700 From: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com> To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix false positives in can_checksum_protocol() On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:26 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 12:13 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> >>> > Perhaps a better solution would be a bit in the skbuff which indicates >>> > that it *is* a TCP or UDP checksum. That would be set by our UDP and >>> > TCP sockets, cleared by encapsulation, also set if appropriate by >>> > skb_partial_csum_set(). I've been pondering a bit of a redesign in this space. I think the skb struct should be explicit in its instructions to hardware for which offloads to do for each packet. In this way, the stack would be *directly* telling the drivers what to do (and what not to do), solving all sorts of bugs and really improving driver reliability and implementation. These other solutions you guys are discussing are half solving the problem, only to make it worse when the next thing comes along. Unfortunately it is only an idea right now and no patches. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists