[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231018154205.GT800259@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:42:05 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: gus Gusenleitner Klaus <gus@...a.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"dsahern@...nel.org" <dsahern@...nel.org>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amd64: Fix csum_partial_copy_generic()
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 06:18:05AM +0000, gus Gusenleitner Klaus wrote:
> The checksum calculation is wrong in case of an source buffer
> containing zero bytes only. The expected return value is 0, the
> actual return value is 0xfffffff.
Expected where? The actual checksum is defined modulo 0xffff, so
0 and 0xffffffff represent the same final value.
The only twist is that in some situations we internally use 0 for
"not calculated yet".
> This problem occurs when a ICMP echo reply is sent that has set
> zero identifier, sequence number and data.
What problem? Could you please either point to specific RFC or
show that packets are rejected by some existing system, or...?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists