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: <20080811.183913.09225669.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	rick.jones2@...com
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, gallatin@...i.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, brice@...i.com
Subject: Re: LRO restructuring?

From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:30:11 -0700

> 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...

IP header is a little different, intermediate nodes should verify it
(and we do adjust it when  decrementing TTL).
--
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