netdev - Re: LRO restructuring?

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: <48A0E7A3.6030200@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:30:11 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, gallatin@...i.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, brice@...i.com
Subject: Re: LRO restructuring?

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:54:34PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 
>>And the checksums :-)  As an intermediate node we don't want
>>to touch the checksum.
> 
> 
> Yeah if it wasn't verified then we must store this as well.

Even if it was verified I think you want to keep the checksums from the 
header.   Since an intermediate device isn't supposed to be peeking at 
the TCP part anyway, it wouldn't do to drop the segment ourselves, pass 
it along to be dropped by the ultimate reciever.  And if there is 
something amis in the verification or the regeneration, we don't want to 
  introduce silent data corruption.

Likely that also goes for the IP header checksum...

rick jones
--
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