linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: udp: use kfree_skb_reason() in udp_queue_rcv_one

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]

Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:28:36 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, pablo@...filter.org,
        kadlec@...filter.org, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, alobakin@...me,
        paulb@...dia.com, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        talalahmad@...gle.com, haokexin@...il.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, memxor@...il.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        coreteam@...filter.org, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: udp: use kfree_skb_reason() in
 udp_queue_rcv_one_skb()

On 1/25/22 8:25 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:04:39 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
>>> I realized it, but SKB_DROP_REASON_TCP_FILTER was already
>>> introduced before. Besides, I think maybe  
>>
>> SKB_DROP_REASON_TCP_FILTER is not in a released kernel yet. If
>> Dave/Jakub are ok you can change SKB_DROP_REASON_TCP_FILTER to
>> SKB_DROP_REASON_SOCKET_FILTER in 'net' repository to make it usable in
>> both code paths.
> 
> SGTM, FWIW. 
> 
> What was the reason we went with separate CSUM values for TCP and UDP?
> Should we coalesce those as well?


To me those are good as independent reasons because the checksum is part
of the protocol and visible in packets.