| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070529135813.63303693@freepuppy> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:58:13 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Definition and usage of NETIF_F_HW_SUM? The flag NETIF_F_HW_SUM is being misused. The definition says that the device is capable of checksumming any packet. When in fact from usage it seems to imply that the device is capable of doing IPV6 as well as IPV4. Some devices like 8139too do "fake checksum offloading" because they always have to copy the packet. Some devices like via-rhine, don't really checksum but if they see CHECKSUM_PARTIAL then they copy. This is bogus, they should just let higher layer do checksum/copy. Devices like e1000, and bnx2 are broken because they assume only TCP/UDP and IPV4/IPV6. The definition of the flag says other protocols should work, but they probably send the hardware into a state of confusion. A few devices take a offset, starting point, and insertion point. This looks like the correct model. But no upper layer protocols other than IPV4/IPV6 can do checksum offload at present, so it seems moot. IMHO the correct solution would be to get rid if NETIF_F_HW_SUM and make a new flag NETIF_F_IPV6_SUM. Devices that can checksum both could do NETIF_F_IPV4_SUM|NETI_F_IPV6_SUM. -- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists