linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: 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]

Message-Id: <20160513.142121.1201664846732017162.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2016 14:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	greearb@...delatech.com
Cc:	w@....eu, vijayp@...ayp.ca, tom@...bertland.com,
	ben@...adent.org.uk, sd@...asysnail.net,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	cwang@...pensource.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ej@...njones.ca,
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, phil@....cc,
	makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don???t modify ip_summed; doing so
 treats packets with bad checksums as good.

From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:57:19 -0700

> How do you feel about a new socket-option to allow a socket to
> request the old veth behaviour?

I depend upon the opinions of the experts who work upstream on and
maintain these components, since it is an area I am not so familiar
with.

Generally speaking asking me directly for opinions on matters like
this isn't the way to go, in fact I kind of find it irritating.  It
can't all be on me.