[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231019061427.GW800259@ZenIV>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 07:14:27 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: gus Gusenleitner Klaus <gus@...a.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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>,
"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: AW: [PATCH] amd64: Fix csum_partial_copy_generic()
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 06:02:50AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 04:44:04AM +0000, gus Gusenleitner Klaus 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.
> > >
> > > 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...?
> >
> > Here's our situation:
> > Our device gets pinged by a third party manufacturer robot controller.
> > We have updated the kernel in our device to 5.15 from 4.9, the robot
> > controller is kept unchanged. At 4.9, our device's ping reply is accepted
> > by the robot controller, at 5.15 it's not.
> >
> > Wireshark shows a bad checksum warning:
> > 'Checksum: 0x0000 incorrect, should be 0xffff'
> >
>
> Lovely. I think I see what's going on, give me a few to think about it...
The real source of trouble was switching csum_and_copy_{to,from}_user()
to reporting faults as 0. And yes, it's broken. Bugger...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists