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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57361B8A.70404@candelatech.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2016 11:23:06 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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.

On 05/13/2016 11:21 AM, David Miller wrote:
> 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.
>

Fair enough, thanks for your time.

Ben

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