netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/7] via-velocity: Correct setting of skipped checksums

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: <20091120.093606.75426775.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:36:06 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	simon.kagstrom@...insight.net
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
	romieu@...zoreil.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] via-velocity: Correct setting of skipped checksums

From: Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@...insight.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:05 +0100

> (Taken from the VIA driver). Check that this is actually an UDP or TCP
> packet before claiming that the checksum is unnecessary.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@...insight.net>

Why would the chip specifically say UDP or TCP checksum is OK
on a packet that is not of said protocol type?

Just wondering...
--
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