netdev - Re: veth regression with "don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good."

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:	Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:34:57 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Vijay Pandurangan <vijayp@...ayp.ca>
CC:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Evan Jones <ej@...njones.ca>,
	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Subject: Re: veth regression with "don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good."



On 03/24/2016 06:44 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote:
> Oops, I think my last email didn't go through due to an inadvertent
> html attachment from my phone mail client.
>
> Can you send us a copy of a packet you're sending and/or confirm that
> the IP and UDP4 checksums are set correctly in the packet?
>
> If those are set right, I think we need to read through the networking
> code again to see why this is broken...

Wireshark decodes the packet as having no checksum errors.

I think the contents of the packet is correct, but the 'ip_summed'
field is set incorrectly to 'NONE' when transmitting on a raw packet
socket.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com