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  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:	Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:02:19 -0500
From:	Andrew Gallatin <>
To:	Ben Hutchings <>
CC:	David Miller <>,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lro: IP fragment checking

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:53 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Andrew Gallatin <>
>>> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:50:15 -0500
>>>> As to whether or not to do it in the drivers/hardware or in the
>>>> LRO code, I favor doing it in the LRO code just so that it is not
>>>> missed in some driver.
>>> Then there is no point in the hardware doing the check, if
>>> we're going to check it anyways.
>>> That's part of my point about why this check doesn't belong
>>> here.
>> What hardware does an explicit check for fragmentation?
> Any that implements TCP/UDP checksumming properly.

How many do?

>> In most cases, aren't we just relying on the hardware checksum
>> to be wrong on fragmented packets? That works 99.999% of the time,
>> but the TCP checksum is pretty weak, and it is possible to
>> have a fragmented packet where the first fragment has the same
>> checksum as the entire packet.
> [...]
> If your hardware/firmware wrongly claims to be able to verify the
> TCP/UDP checksum for an IP fragment, it seems to me you should deal with
> that in your driver or fix the firmware.

We do partial checksums.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists