netdev - Re: [RFC/PATCH] SO_NO

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]

Message-Id: <E1Ivo4H-0006Z2-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Date:	Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:00:41 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] SO_NO_CHECK for IPv6

David Schwartz <davids@...master.com> wrote:
> 
>> Regardless of whatever verifications your application is doing
>> on the data, it is not checksumming the ports and that's what
>> the pseudo-header is helping with.
> 
> So what? We are in the case where the data has already gotten to him. If it
> got to him in error, he'll reject it anyway. The receive checksum check will
> only reject packets that he would reject anyway. That makes it needless.

What if it goes to the wrong recipient who doesn't have the upper-
level checksums?

This is the whole point, IPv6 unlike IPv4 does not have IP header
checksums so the high-level needs to protect it by checksumming
the pseudo-header.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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