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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080812015321.GA19011@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:53:21 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	rick.jones2@...com, gallatin@...i.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	brice@...i.com
Subject: Re: LRO restructuring?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 06:39:13PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 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.

Well I wasn't suggesting that it be dropped, but simply skip LRO
if the inbound packet fails the checksum check.

But yeah, it's only two bytes so we might as well always have it.

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