netdev - Re: [IPV6] RAW: Add checksum default defines for MH.

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, 24 Jan 2007 16:05:41 +0900 (JST)
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, nakam@...ux-ipv6.org, takamiya@...ntts.co.jp,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [IPV6] RAW: Add checksum default defines for MH.

In article <E1H9c3T-0005HA-00@...dolin.me.apana.org.au> (at Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:56:23 +1100), Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> says:

> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> > Did a complete agreement occur that this patch is ok?
> 
> My only concern is that we're putting an arbitrary list of
> protocols in the generic raw.c.  What's the justification
> for including these protocols in particular but not others?
> 
> Is there any reason why the application can't just use the
> existing IPV6_CHECKSUM socket option to set the same fields?

Yes, it can.

The only reason they (not myself :-)) want to put this in is
because the RFC says that MIP6 implementation MUST compute
checksum by default when it passes the MH to userspace.  On
the other hand, it also states that user space application SHOULD
set IPV6_CHECKSUM to 4.

--yoshfuji

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html