netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix false positives in can_checksum

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, 5 Oct 2015 18:28:58 +0000
From:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix false positives in can_checksum_protocol()

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> 
> 4) To help drivers for devices with limited offload capabilities we'll
> define a helper function to check for typical restrictions (.e.g. IPv4
> only, TCP/UDP only. no encapsulation, no IPv6 extension headers,
> etc.). I am working on this helper function and will send RFC shortly.

FWIW, ixgbe probably won't use the IPv6 extension header check, because I am working on simply adding offload support for it. It seems to me that if segment routing becomes used, in some places there will be enough traffic with it present to want it offloaded. Well, maybe ixgbe should use the extension header check until I get the offload support done, but that is it.

Are there any good tools for testing IPv6 extension headers? It seems that it hasn't been tested up to this point or the ixgbe problem would have been noticed, so it would be good to introduce a good tool to test it properly.

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)