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]
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:37:37 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        gus Gusenleitner Klaus <gus@...a.com>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        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 16:42, Al Viro wrote:

> 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.

Duh. I really should have read the RFC first :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ