linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 net-next 1/1] hyperv: Properly handle checksum offload

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]

Message-Id: <20140428.132347.778081265367223580.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kys@...rosoft.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devel@...uxdriverproject.org, olaf@...fle.de, apw@...onical.com,
	jasowang@...hat.com, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 net-next 1/1] hyperv: Properly handle checksum
 offload

From: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:55:23 -0700

> @@ -467,6 +467,9 @@ static int netvsc_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *net)
>  	if (skb_is_gso(skb))
>  		goto do_lso;
>  
> +	if (skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_PARTIAL)
> +		goto do_send;
> +

There are many possible values of ip_summed, why would you go to do_send if
for example it was set to CHECKSUM_COMPLETE?

I think you are just rushing this change, take your time and implement the
fix properly.

For example, if you only expect two possible values here (CHECKSUM_PARTIAL
and something else), design your test so that it only allows those two
values and therefore you'll be documenting this invariant.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/