[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1461801603.3971874.591751457.2DB91B98@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:00:03 +0200
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vijay Pandurangan <vijayp@...ayp.ca>,
Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Evan Jones <ej@...njones.ca>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.
Hi Ben,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > 3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > I would be careful about this. It causes regressions when sending
> > PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to veth devices.
> >
> > There was a proposed upstream fix for the regression, but it has not gone
> > into the tree as far as I know.
> >
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg370436.html
> [...]
>
> OK, I'll drop this for now.
The fall out from not having this patch is in my opinion a bigger
fallout than not having this patch. This patch fixes silent data
corruption vs. the problem Ben Greear is talking about, which might not
be that a common usage.
What do others think?
Bye,
Hannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists