netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IPV4] UDP: Always checksum even if without socket filter

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:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:39:28 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	andi@...stfloor.org
Cc:	billfink@...dspring.com, wangchen@...fujitsu.com,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [IPV4] UDP: Always checksum even if without socket
 filter

From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:05:18 +0100

> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:29:45AM -0500, Bill Fink wrote:
> > While I agree with your analysis that it could be worked around,
> > who knows how all the various SNMP monitoring applications out there
> > would interpret such an unusual event.  I liked Stephen's suggestion
> > of a deferred decrement that would insure the counter didn't ever
> > run backwards.  But the best approach seems to be just not to count
> > it in the first place until tha application has actually received
> > the packet, since as Herbert pointed out, that's what the RFC
> > actually specifies for the meaning of the udpInDatagrams counter.
> 
> Together with another counter that counts "edge datagrams received"
> that would be an excellent idea.
> 
> Here's a patch.

NFS and friends that use the ->data_ready() callback needs to
be updated as well.  Please fix this and resubmit, thanks.
-
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